|
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 know this is crazy to mention but just in case if tomorrow the 5th district do uphold the decision on the ACA, doesn't that mean almost all of the candidates who wants to put out Obamacare v.2 is completely out of luck?
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 02:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:You are making the same moronic argument that dipshit republicans have against her for years with absolutely zero proof. The people who hired her at Harvard were asked about this and they said her native heritage had nothing to do with her being hired. And as we all know she's clearly a moron who would've never accomplished anything or had a good career without checking that box, right? It's practically never possible to prove affirmative action happened in any given instance. The most you can ever say is that an employer was making a conscious effort to increase the diversity of their workforce during hiring, she had a minority ethnicity on her resume, she got hired, and then when her employer touted the diversity of the workforce they included her. That's how affirmative action is supposed to work, instances where an employer said "yeah I only picked so-and-so because of their race" are vanishingly rare, mythical even. There's no reason to give someone who lies about their ethnicity the benefit of the doubt, you can never prove that it was the deciding factor giving her the job. The moral issue is that she lied about being Native American to get an advantage, not whether she was successful or not. This isn't that hard, although there's some people that still insist Hillary's well-documented cheating in the primary isn't a moral concern because we'll never know for sure if she actually needed to cheat to win. The problem is that she cheated, not whether she's a good or lucky enough cheater!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 02:28
|
|
|
Luckyellow posted:I know this is crazy to mention but just in case if tomorrow the 5th district do uphold the decision on the ACA, doesn't that mean almost all of the candidates who wants to put out Obamacare v.2 is completely out of luck? Tomorrow's oral arguments, a decision will be weeks later and then inevitably go to the Supreme Court. And... no I don't think what you're suggesting is at all what would happen.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 02:29
|
|
|
Imagine Lance Armstrong making these kinds of arguments. "Well yes I doped, and then I won all those medals, but since we can't go back in time and redo the race without me doping you can't prove that I wouldn't have won anyway. Therefore you have to ignore it!" Actually I wouldn't be surprised if people who tribally identified as Lance Armstrong fans who did make absurd arguments like that to defend Team Lance
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 02:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Imagine Lance Armstrong making these kinds of arguments. Ok but just to be fair, a minimum of 50% of his competition was doing the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 02:47
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:Ok but just to be fair, a minimum of 50% of his competition was doing the same thing. "Everyone does it" is a way better defense for cheating than "well you can't prove it made any difference anyways"
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 03:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/IfNotNowOrg/status/1148380673381560320
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 03:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:she lied about being Native American to get an advantage Unless she rubbed her hands together and cackled, "Haha, this will turbo-charge my career in academia for sure!" while checking off that box, and there were witnesses present, it is impossible to prove that Warren intended to gain a hiring advantage by checking off "Native American" on affirmative action forms that she filled out for the Association of American Law Schools, not for her prospective employers. Also, the last time she checked off that box on one of those forms was apparently in 1992, which is 27 loving years ago. Here's what she had to say about it when first asked: "I listed myself (in the) directory in the hopes that might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something, with people who are like I am," Warren told reporters May 3, 2012. "Nothing like that ever happened. That was absolutely not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off." This is cringey AF, as the kids today say, but not disqualifying, to me at least. Her past as a devout free-market Republican is of way more concern to me, but her political career suggests (again, to me, maybe not to you) that her conversion to her currently-avowed viewpoints is genuine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 04:15
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Imagine Lance Armstrong making these kinds of arguments. Imagine Bernie trying to backtrack his racist views on gun ownership (Chicago isn't the same as rural white America). Oh wait, he actually refuses to even attempt this. Or that he was only elected to Congress because he was backed by NRA and refused to sign the bipartisan Brady Bill. But no, that doesn't matter. Because Bernie is Christ, infallible and not a woman. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
As has been mentioned before, at best, even with the most naive and positive perception of Warren as a politician reasonably possible, Warren is a strictly inferior version of Sanders who is worse on several issues and has a far less consistent and reliable background. Even if you blindly trust her despite having waffled on many of these issues in very recent history, it still makes no sense to support her. SlothfulCobra posted:She never claimed to be a full native american, she claimed to have a little ancestry, which is very distinct, and not exactly uncommon. Other people went on to independently spin that out for their own purposes. She specifically used language like "my Native American heritage" which is much stronger than just "it's interesting I might have some random Native American in my family tree." Making some trace heritage from an oppressed minority group part of your identity as a white person is hosed up, no matter how you slice it. And she very clearly made it part of her identity to a degree significantly greater than "oh I have this one random relative from X," even if she was later forced to backpedal that. The DNA test just made things even worse, because it publicly conflated Native/tribal identity with DNA. What she did was wrong. You can think it's forgivable or less important than other issues, but it was undeniably bad. SlothfulCobra posted:The far left have a habit of souring on everything, including the concept of engaging with legitimate politics and even Bernie when they're not trying to work him out to be a messiah. How about you actually point out what specific things people have said that you disagree with instead of just whining a bunch? Every time I see a post like this it basically just reads to me as "I'm really salty about what left-wingers are saying (in this case about Elizabeth Warren), but I don't really have anything countering their points so I'll just impotently whine about them being overly negative." This even includes a bizarre oxymoron to boot; apparently the left is bad because they "sour on" Bernie while also considering him a messiah (which is definitely a thing definitely based on reality, and not just a bizarre interpretation of things necessary to rationalize why the "far left" must be wrong despite actually being correct about all the issues).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 04:34
|
|
|
That's great; I hope she sticks to it. So far, she hasn't been as good at sticking to big promises as I'd like her to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 04:42
|
|
|
Brogeoisie posted:Imagine Bernie trying to backtrack his racist views on gun ownership (Chicago isn't the same as rural white America). Oh wait, he actually refuses to even attempt this. Or that he was only elected to Congress because he was backed by NRA and refused to sign the bipartisan Brady Bill. Bernie, like all American politicians, is bad. I support him because he's so much better than the rest that he's almost good. Not because he's infallible. Chicken Butt posted:Unless she rubbed her hands together and cackled, "Haha, this will turbo-charge my career in academia for sure!" while checking off that box, and there were witnesses present, it is impossible to prove that Warren intended to gain a hiring advantage by checking off "Native American" on affirmative action forms that she filled out for the Association of American Law Schools, not for her prospective employers. Also, the last time she checked off that box on one of those forms was apparently in 1992, which is 27 loving years ago. When you're in a job interview (that's what running for president is, a job interview, not a criminal conviction requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt), good defenses to lying and cheating do not include ❌That particular instance of the lie I'm still telling today happened 27 years ago so it doesn't matter ❌ Well you can't read my mind and know for sure I intended to cheat, you can't ever really prove why these cards are in my sleeve! ❌ Ah but you've only found some of the forms I lied on, maybe I was honest other times, you don't know!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 04:53
|
|
|
Brogeoisie posted:Imagine Bernie trying to backtrack his racist views on gun ownership (Chicago isn't the same as rural white America). He never said the bolded part, which kind of makes a difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 05:04
|
|
|
The fact anyone who calls themselves a leftist who thinks a white person - who also happens to be a former Reaganite FFS - lying about their ethnicity for their own self-aggrandizement is permissible in any way shape or form should probably gently caress off. This Cherokee origin bullshit means a Warren nominee would completely neutralize any effective Democratic attacks painting Donald Trump as a serial liar. Trump then uses this lie to explain her flip-flopping record and statements in addition to his skill at manipulating an ever increasingly worthless media to get reelected. She also said she’ll take donor money if she’s the nominee. But wouldn’t it be great if there was a candidate with an actual consistent 40+ year record on progressive issues in the field right now?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 05:10
|
|
|
There is a stark difference between knowingly saying something is false, and placing a little too much faith in one's own family members being correct about lineage. Her siblings and other family members have stated that they had a relative who was socially ostracized because everyone thought she had native blood. Turns out that was probably not the case but the belief did cause a rift in her family that was real. Warren herself mentions that the relative essentially had to elope in order to get married. All this to say, as an Oklahoman myself, this sort of thing is very common. Family genealogies in places like Oklahoma from 1880-1960 were extremely janky because there weren't really any strong social institutions to keep detailed family records. This is true all across America in the 19th century (most American genealogies are extremely well kept once you get back to Europe, record keeping in the US was poo poo due to the Catholic Church, the main authority on family records, being a minority religious institution). Plenty of people in OK believe they have native ancestry when they don't, and not all of them are racist liars- some people just genuinely don't know and have gone through situations like Warren where the assumption of native blood wasn't a ploy to get ahead, it was an understandable mistake. Should people be more diligent in finding out the truth of their ancestry? Sure. Did Warren act pretty tone deaf on this? Yeah. Should you be calling her "a liar" and accusing her of lying "for decades" given her nuanced family response to this? You can, but you sound like someone just trying to win the Leftist purity contest rather than someone making an argument in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
Bullshit. This is pure pandering, she is not going to reverse on 20 years of stated positions and votes because some protestors cornered her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 05:16
|
|
|
wonder if she walks this back faster than harris' does when she lies about being for m4a
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
I am curious how you go from 2016 "bomb the hospitals and schools and let god sort it out" to "Israel is acting in bad faith" A cynical man might think it has something to do with the 2020 democratic primaries.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This even includes a bizarre oxymoron to boot; apparently the left is bad because they "sour on" Bernie while also considering him a messiah (which is definitely a thing definitely based on reality, and not just a bizarre interpretation of things necessary to rationalize why the "far left" must be wrong despite actually being correct about all the issues). To be specific, I say it because this thread tends to veer much farther left than you ever tend to see out in the real world, and there are a mix of people who see Bernie in more symbolic terms than what he actually is, and people who are pretty explicitly talking anarchism (and may or may not be serious, it's hard to tell and there's no substantial difference either way), which is pretty unworkable. The internet leftist cred argument feels more self-aggrandizing than anything else. While there has been some significant success lately, they're still not the bulk of the electorate yet. While leftward policies seek to benefit the bulk of people, when push comes to shove, many don't perceive that and might vote against their own interests again. And on Israel specifically, I don't think Bernie's going to lay down sanctions on them, and I'm not sure he even can shut down arms sales to Israel, so in practical terms, we're talking about strong disapproval of Israel without doing much vs. more pragmatic disapproval of Israel without doing much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 05:33
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:She never claimed to be a full native american, she claimed to have a little ancestry, which is very distinct, and not exactly uncommon. Other people went on to independently spin that out for their own purposes. Good: https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1072129227074531330 Bad: Claiming on your state bar application that you are a Native American, letting Harvard represent you as their only Native American faculty, writing a bullshit recipe for the cookbook titled "Pow Wow Chow."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
Such a strange phenomenon, to see people talking about Bernie and another candidate and acting like they're the same for all intents and purposes. Gives me a sense of...well it's kind of like Deja Vu but sort of, nostalgic?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 05:38
|
|
|
Gillibrand definitely shouldn't be the nominee, but this is not the reason why... Predictably terrible  https://twitter.com/jennyrogersDC/status/1148389965056942083
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 05:39
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:There is a stark difference between knowingly saying something is false, and placing a little too much faith in one's own family members being correct about lineage. Her siblings and other family members have stated that they had a relative who was socially ostracized because everyone thought she had native blood. Turns out that was probably not the case but the belief did cause a rift in her family that was real. Warren herself mentions that the relative essentially had to elope in order to get married. What you're describing is lying. Someone in your family telling you some unnamed relative was a Cherokee princess back in the day does not make you Native American. Even if you believe the family member, even if that family member was right, that doesn't make a suburban white lady into a Cherokee. Links with the Native American community, tribal membership, and proven ancestry back to the Dawes Roll makes you Native American. Now the defense is going to be "ah but Elizabeth Warren wasn't lying you see, because she didn't know or give a rat's rear end about the culture and people she was claiming to be in order to make herself seem more interesting to colleagues and schools and employers" and yuh exactly that's the whole problem. She didn't care enough about Native people to even bother to find out what it means to be one and the racist history of white people using claims of blood quanta to pretend to be Natives when convenient for their own self advancement. That's what was bad! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Jul 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 05:43
|
|
|
elizabeth warren took a drug test to finally put to bed the rumors that she is 1/16th risperdal is this good, or bad? read the next 30 pages to find out (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 05:58
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:To be specific, I say it because this thread tends to veer much farther left than you ever tend to see out in the real world, and there are a mix of people who see Bernie in more symbolic terms than what he actually is, and people who are pretty explicitly talking anarchism (and may or may not be serious, it's hard to tell and there's no substantial difference either way), which is pretty unworkable. You seem to be making some liberal equivalent of a "virtue signalling" argument here. What exactly is wrong about caring about important issues? It's not even like we're talking about anything particularly pie in the sky here; most of us are supporting Bernie Sanders because he's a prominent politician with a decent shot at the presidency, even if he's not ideal in various ways. We view certain core issues, like MfA, a not-insane foreign policy, etc as being extremely important, and Sanders is the only candidate with a background that makes him highly trustworthy on those issues. Every other candidate other than Warren can immediately be dismissed on these grounds, and Warren herself has a history on topics like MfA or foreign policy that render her unreliable at best. You can argue that MfA is unlikely to be passed regardless of who is president, and you'd probably be correct, but having a president who will strongly advocate for it (and normalize the idea in the process) will likely push forward the time frame significantly (maybe it will be passed in 10 years instead of 20 years, for example) and that matters a lot. There are other reasons as well, but most of us simply view Sanders as the only candidate that offers much hope of moving far in the right direction. While I can't prove that Warren will be unreliable on these issues, I would quite literally bet money IRL that she will not maintain her commitment into a hypothetical presidency on issues like MfA (and honestly I'd be surprised if she did even for the general election).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 06:03
|
|
|
send bernie sanders to the hague
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 06:04
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Gillibrand definitely shouldn't be the nominee, but this is not the reason why... Lol even the comments on that tweet have a bunch of Franken defenders, though at least they're getting hilariously dunked on. Shame Gillibrand is a racist and a homophobe (I know I know, not really, deep in her heart of hearts she wasn't a bigot she was just an amoral opportunist which is okay), because her shredding Frankin to pieces was legit awesome as was her saying Bill is a predator and should have resigned, she pissed off all the worst people. If she has an "and I welcome their hatred" moment for Clinton/Franken -ites in the debates I still wouldn't vote for her but I'd respect it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 06:09
|
|
|
it's pretty funny how questioning the sanctity of saturday night live is what's done her in
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 06:42
|
|
|
The Franken thing is probably Gillibrand's best argument in my opinion, shame about the literally everything else
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 06:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Lol even the comments on that tweet have a bunch of Franken defenders, though at least they're getting hilariously dunked on. If she does, she might just kill his supposed recovery-tour he's planning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 07:05
|
|
|
Singling out Warren for her views on Israel is befuddling considering Bernie's actual track record. If he's "always been on the right side of history" , this is a bad showing. *** https://mondoweiss.net/2016/04/bernie-sanders-record-on-palestine/ Perhaps more important than his rhetoric is his voting record on this issue. During the 2014 assault on Gaza, blatantly biased Senate resolutions S. Res 498 and S. Res 526 that fully condoned the Israeli assault and characterized it as “self-defense” were passed by unanimous consent. Although Sanders did not co-sponsor either resolution, he failed to register any formal objection (a resolution passes by unanimous consent if no objection is raised; as such, no vote is taken). To be clear, this is not the first time Sanders failed to speak up in Congress against Israel’s brutal assault of Gaza. In 2012, Sanders failed to register any objection against biased Senate resolution S. Res 599 that couched Israel’s bombing of Gaza as “self-defense” and that passed by unanimous consent; according to Human Rights organization B’Tselem, 167 Palestinians were killed, including at least 87 civilians (vs. 4 Israeli civilians). In 2009, biased Senate resolution S. Res 10 backed Israel’s assault on Gaza and yet again justified it as Israel’s “right to defend itself” without garnering any objection from Sanders (it passed by unanimous consent); according to B’Tselem, 1387 Palestinians were killed, including at least 773 civilians (vs. 3 Israeli civilians). In 2006, Sanders actually supported the brutal Israeli assault on Gaza and Lebanon during the war that killed 1191 Lebanese civilians per Amnesty International (vs. 43 Israeli civilians killed) when he voted Yea to House resolution H. Res 921. As such, Sanders’ track record on this issue is quite problematic, and his framing of the conflict is totally divorced from the historical context needed to understand why this “conflict” persists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 07:07
|
|
|
That's some real disingenuous selective quoting. Let's see what else that article says: quote:Bernie Sanders is clearly more progressive on the Palestinian issue than any other major candidate for the Presidency including Hillary Clinton.  Weird that's the opposite of the conclusion that you claim the article supports, that all Democrats are the same and Warren is being singled out unfairly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 07:21
|
|
|
Midgetskydiver posted:There is a stark difference between knowingly saying something is false, and placing a little too much faith in one's own family members being correct about lineage. Her siblings and other family members have stated that they had a relative who was socially ostracized because everyone thought she had native blood. Turns out that was probably not the case but the belief did cause a rift in her family that was real. Warren herself mentions that the relative essentially had to elope in order to get married. i'm oklahoman too my mother told me my great grandmother was native american i was never dumb enough to try to claim that I was native american i also never tried to do dumb poo poo like this: quote:Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren, fending off questions about whether she used her Native American heritage to advance her career, said today she enrolled herself as a minority in law school directories for nearly a decade because she hoped to meet other people with tribal roots. you know why? because native americans are not like I am. I do not share their experiences or their oppression. neither does loving elizabeth warren quote:“Being Native American has been part of my story I guess since the day I was born,” said Warren, who never mentioned her Native American heritage on the campaign trail even as she detailed much of her personal history to voters in speeches, statements and a video. “These are my family stories, I have lived in a family that has talked about Native American and talked about tribes since I was a little girl.” she sure did love to pretend she did though Condiv fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Jul 9, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 08:03
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:Because winning the electoral college while getting trounced in the popular vote is something that is possible but extremely improbable, and an election strategy that relies on it happening a second time is weak as poo poo. Winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote is something that happened two out of the last three times that a GOP president got elected, which doesn't exactly seem to support your claims of it being improbable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
Condiv posted:she sure did love to pretend she did though Gotta say, would love to hear what her family was saying about Native Americans at family get-togethers. I'm sure it was nothing but the most respectful rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 08:24
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:wonder if she walks this back faster than harris' does when she lies about being for m4a There's nothing to even walk back there. "Support a two state solution with an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza" has been the boilerplate Democratic position on the issue since the mid 90s, at least.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 12:17
|
|
|
Chicken Butt posted:
Warren didn't shift left, the Democrats shifted right. She's still a Reagan republican, much like Obama
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 12:46
|
|
|
Using israel/Palestine as a litmus test seems real dumb given that pretty much all candidates have done various amounts of hedging into a "well I hope they stop killing each other and peace breaks out" position. Perhaps I am wrong in this phone post, but have any candidates said actual plans about how they would deal with Israel such as halting arms sales etc.? If not, then why would we judge any candidates one way or another on the issue since they are functionally the same?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 12:58
|
|
|
OctaMurk posted:Using israel/Palestine as a litmus test seems real dumb given that pretty much all candidates have done various amounts of hedging into a "well I hope they stop killing each other and peace breaks out" position. Because Bernie Sanders is running, so any position where the other candidates are worse than Bernie is a mark against them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 13:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 14:21 |
|
|
do any candidates have a position on the rome statute?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2019 13:56
|
|
