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 |
|
Thank you for explaining how rationalizing behavior works. Clearly no one had ever heard of that before!
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 01:24 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 06:03 |
|
eke out posted:bad optics Yes!! Thank you! Finally somebody has the courage to call Bernie out on this poo poo.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 01:50 |
|
Skex posted:The argument is that liberalism was created as a moral defense of slavery, which seems particularly odd since [b] there wasn't really any philosophy or ideology prior to it that even questioned whether slavery was moral or not. ]/b]It was liberal democracies that questioned the practice in the first place and where it was ended. This is a good point that hasn't gotten enough attention imho. It had never occured to anyone prior to the 17th century that slavery might be immoral.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 01:54 |
|
Bernie is doing great if the chuds have started getting into his mentions
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 01:59 |
|
Cerebral Bore posted:This might be the lowest point of your already abysmal level of reading comprehension. Congrats, I guess?
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 02:24 |
|
Skex posted:I mean come on it's not like Communism has any better record on this stuff, The USSR was not a place of tolerance and acceptance of difference, nor was it particularly environmentally conscious either. In fact it turns out that pretty much every system that concentrates power in the hands of a few eventually suffer from the same short sighted tyrannical situations. The problem is concentration of power, not what the economic system or political system per se, it's just that most political and economic systems tend to concentrate power into the hands of those who are willing to abuse it and even those who start with the best of intentions eventually end up rationalizing abuses of power in service of themselves, they decide that either "it's for the greater good" conveniently ignoring how the those actions always result in them having more power to abuse. I would strongly recommend that you read some Russian (and Chinese and Cuban and Vietnamese and...) history and take the time to contextualize where these Communist states' concentration of power arose from. Because the Russians didn't need Marx to prefer autocratic, sometimes tyrannical rulers. e to be slightly less dickish, but come on dude Majorian fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Jul 12, 2019 |
# ? Jul 12, 2019 02:37 |
|
Skex posted:
Because conservatives are never planning to compromise, and more importantly, as long as the GOP thinks that racial, gender and sexual minorities aren’t human and we should be subjugated or killed, there should be absolutely loving nothing we compromise on. They can eat all the poo poo in the world, I’ll never shed a tear over them thinking the world is moving too quickly.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 03:10 |
|
Skex is apologizing for the actions of homo hostilis generii, as all liberals do when cornered by those who hold them to their false promises and naked treachery.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 03:13 |
|
Majorian posted:Like hell they don't. Offer, or threaten to withhold, appointments, threaten to strip seniority, get up in their faces and screech at them, threaten to endorse a primary challenger, etc. At some point you have to call Joe Manchin's bluff and say, "Oh, you're going to threaten to jump ship to the Republicans, lose your seniority, and probably get taken out in a Republican primary? Be my guest." The Democratic leadership doesn't have any leverage like that over senators because they choose to never exercise it. I also think Manchin, specifically, might WIN a Republican primary.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 03:21 |
|
Majorian posted:I would strongly recommend that you read some Russian (and Chinese and Cuban and Vietnamese and...) history and take the time to contextualize where these Communist states' concentration of power arose from. Because the Russians didn't need Marx to prefer autocratic, sometimes tyrannical rulers.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 03:34 |
|
theflyingorc posted:This is like saying that when playing chicken, you'll always win if you never swerve. We're not kowtowing to another Lieberman. That's over.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 03:41 |
|
theflyingorc posted:This is like saying that when playing chicken, you'll always win if you never swerve. Given that the Dems have only swerved over the past few decades, and keep losing embarrassingly, perhaps it's time to try not swerving. Given that they're supposed to be in the business of playing chicken, at least in this analogy. quote:I also think Manchin, specifically, might WIN a Republican primary. Possibly, but if I were him, I would think twice about putting my political future on the line on that bet. Typo posted:dictatorships are literally written into the dna of those cultures Nah, I know you're goofing but I wouldn't say that. It's more that all those countries had to longjump from feudal or semi-feudal systems into industrial and post-industrial ones. In Russia's and China's histories, they were best able to make those great leaps forward (to steal a phrase) under autocratic rulers. Majorian fucked around with this message at 03:45 on Jul 12, 2019 |
# ? Jul 12, 2019 03:41 |
|
If the scope of your political imagination doesn't include actually winning, why would you even care about or be passionate about politics? If you genuinely don't think that in your lifetime you could see the policies you support being put in place to change the world towards how you want it to be, why on earth would you be posting about the Democrat primary 8 months before it even starts?
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 04:00 |
|
Willie Tomg posted:If I meditated for a week on how to best inflame the most organized and militant sects of the american right wing while doing nothing whatsoever to empower the people who'd necessarily resist them I sincerely could not do better than "Opportunity Grants for black entrepreneurs as a response to police brutality" Yes he has hosed up pretty bad on this. I thought he'd break in the other direction. He may yet, but it's not going to happen in this primary. But that second question (socialism and democracy) is the interesting one anyway. It's also not new. It's from Germany in the thirties. Many of the fault lines in these threads aren't new and the arguements certainly aren't. Where do you stand on that one?
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 04:06 |
|
Gripweed posted:If the scope of your political imagination doesn't include actually winning, why would you even care about or be passionate about politics? If you genuinely don't think that in your lifetime you could see the policies you support being put in place to change the world towards how you want it to be, why on earth would you be posting about the Democrat primary 8 months before it even starts? I think it's going to be very difficult to do more than incrementalism even with a very good result in 2020, even if we get President Bernie, because of the goddamn poo poo that is the US Senate right now. The biggest tactical mistake the Democrats have made was not burning down the filibuster in 2008, which was the window where we could have done some cool things - if we didn't have the filibuster.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 04:29 |
|
BrandorKP posted:Yes he has hosed up pretty bad on this. I thought he'd break in the other direction. He may yet, but it's not going to happen in this primary. This whole Buttigieg situation should make you wonder why everyone else was able to quickly and accurate judge him. It's not just a coincidence that we were right about this; it was always obvious from the man's own background that he was going to be bad politically. I also am not at all clear on what you're trying to say with this socialism/democracy stuff. There's nothing particular complex about what causes the conflicts in these threads; some people have different values and priorities than others. People either disagree with the goals of the left, or they don't consider them a high enough priority to understand why the left wouldn't be willing to speak positively of politicians who don't support those goals. It's not really any more complex than the gap between liberals and conservatives.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 04:52 |
|
theflyingorc posted:I think it's going to be very difficult to do more than incrementalism even with a very good result in 2020, even if we get President Bernie, because of the goddamn poo poo that is the US Senate right now. The biggest tactical mistake the Democrats have made was not burning down the filibuster in 2008, which was the window where we could have done some cool things - if we didn't have the filibuster. You're not even going to get incrementalism if you don't highball your demands. Again, the Obama years proved that.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 04:53 |
theflyingorc posted:By what method. If the government assumed the debt and paid it off, probably not that bad. If he just declares "THERE IS NO LONGER CREDIT CARD DEBT" then it would probably explode the economy bootlicker
|
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 05:10 |
theflyingorc posted:I think it's going to be very difficult to do more than incrementalism even with a very good result in 2020, even if we get President Bernie, because of the goddamn poo poo that is the US Senate right now. The biggest tactical mistake the Democrats have made was not burning down the filibuster in 2008, which was the window where we could have done some cool things - if we didn't have the filibuster. you're under the impression that the filibuster was the only and exclusive reason that the 2008 Democrats didn't do "cool things". The succeeding decade of history proves extremely otherwise.
|
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 05:10 |
|
SKULL.GIF posted:bootlicker What an exceptionally stupid post to level that at me for
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 05:21 |
|
Im very fine ruining Delaware's economy for the other 49 states.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 05:24 |
|
Trabisnikof posted:This is a definitions issue of sorts. USDA ERS uses economic activity to determine size, while I was pulling from USDA Census of Agriculture by acreage. Ah... that's an 'interesting' way to bucket farms. Thanks for the clarification.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 05:27 |
|
Majorian posted:You're not even going to get incrementalism if you don't highball your demands. Again, the Obama years proved that. Ok, i can just grant the point, but i don't see how it contradicts with what i said
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 05:29 |
|
Majorian posted:I would strongly recommend that you read some Russian (and Chinese and Cuban and Vietnamese and...) history and take the time to contextualize where these Communist states' concentration of power arose from. Because the Russians didn't need Marx to prefer autocratic, sometimes tyrannical rulers. This is some Sonderweg mixed in with good old Orientalism. Russians/Chinese/Cubans/Vietnamese are incapable of non-authoritarian political systems because... culture... genes... innate inability to become civilized? Also, the issue isn't Marx... its rather Marxist-Lenninst vanguardism (the form of Marxism that incidentally ended up becoming dominant in and dominating all of these states). There are lots of interpretations of Marx that can lead to decentralized, democratized versions of communism.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 05:38 |
|
Incrementalism had never worked. Every progressive policy ever enacted in the us is the result of starting with a bold policy. We have Medicare not because people sat around and thought that would be a good first step, but because there was a real chance of passing universal healthcare. Timid first steps are smothered in the cradle, not emboldened over time. Not to mention the magnitude of the crisis we're seeing. The gulf is in the process of becoming a single endless island of sargassum, even the paltry protections of the ACA maybe gone soon, and the next recession may take years to fix given the dependency on the gig economy. Technocratic half measures won't help with any of that.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 05:46 |
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:This is some Sonderweg mixed in with good old Orientalism. Russians/Chinese/Cubans/Vietnamese are incapable of non-authoritarian political systems because... culture... genes... innate inability to become civilized? are you wholly incapable of reading with comprehension or what he very obviously said it has to do with history and context so not "genes", not "innate" and definitely not "incapable" "culture" maybe, tentatively, but far from the feeling of set-in-stone that you're aiming for when using these words
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 05:56 |
|
joepinetree posted:Incrementalism had never worked. Every progressive policy ever enacted in the us is the result of starting with a bold policy. We have Medicare not because people sat around and thought that would be a good first step, but because there was a real chance of passing universal healthcare. Timid first steps are smothered in the cradle, not emboldened over time. I am not saying that i want incrementalism, I'm saying that centrist Dems are going to make anything but extremely hard, and that's IF we take all three branches and are willing to nuke the filibuster.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 05:57 |
|
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/452738-sanders-says-he-favors-abolishing-the-electoral-college Bernie good.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 06:23 |
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:This is some Sonderweg mixed in with good old Orientalism. Russians/Chinese/Cubans/Vietnamese are incapable of non-authoritarian political systems because... culture... genes... innate inability to become civilized? My dude, I'm (partially) ethnically Russian. A good chunk of my family quite literally died in the Gulag. So you can leave out the faux-outrage, please. What I am saying has nothing to do with culture or genes, and everything to do with historical development. China, Vietnam, and Cuba experienced horrific socioeconomic setbacks at around the time the West was industrializing because of, you guessed it, good ol' imperialism. Russia, of course, had its own fun, peculiar issues. quote:Also, the issue isn't Marx... its rather Marxist-Lenninst vanguardism (the form of Marxism that incidentally ended up becoming dominant in and dominating all of these states). Marx-Leninism came into being because Lenin wanted Russia to leap from being a semi-feudal, semi-industrialized society, into an industrialized one that was ready to become a post-capitalist one in quick succession. Which is what I have been describing in this conversation.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 06:25 |
|
Majorian posted:
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 06:28 |
|
similarly, Bernie supporters do not lash out at Warren supporters because they are bound to do so due to "innate" genetic characteristics, but rather in response to aggression by her fascist-lite supporters and the need to take a "great leap forward" past her in polling numbers
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 06:30 |
|
There’s a reason Peter the Great and Stalin are always in the top three most beloved Russians, whenever one news source or another runs one of those silly surveys.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 06:35 |
|
Majorian posted:I'm not seeing where autonomy of the individual for everyone is guaranteed under liberalism; I'm also not seeing how it isn't guaranteed under socialism.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 06:38 |
|
It’s almost as if the way that “socialism” played out in the 20th century has more to do with factors like the Russian Civil War, the Chinese Civil War, the Bay of Pigs, the American savagery in Vietnam, etc...
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 06:43 |
|
Lol https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1149322763519156224
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 06:44 |
|
my analogy for beto's campaign is a toilet flushing directly into jeb's mouth
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 06:48 |
|
Majorian posted:It’s almost as if the way that “socialism” played out in the 20th century has more to do with factors like the Russian Civil War, the Chinese Civil War, the Bay of Pigs, the American savagery in Vietnam, etc... Yeah but if you say things like "and after those things we decided to wage decades of economic warfare against the communist states of the world and then publically wondered why they didn't turn out great" then some disingenuous lib or Extreme History Understander is going to say you're a Stalinist.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 06:52 |
|
Majorian posted:It’s almost as if the way that “socialism” played out in the 20th century has more to do with factors like the Russian Civil War, the Chinese Civil War, the Bay of Pigs, the American savagery in Vietnam, etc... while we could argue all day about the history of socialist states in the 20th century, one cannot help but think if someone is trying to argue for "socialism guarantee people's rights and freedoms", that casually bringing up Stalin and the Great leap forward might not be the best 'tactic" to convince a reader of one's correctness.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 06:52 |
|
Typo posted:while we could argue all day about the history of socialist states in the 20th century, one cannot help but think if someone is trying to argue for "socialism guarantee people's rights and freedoms", that casually bringing up Stalin and the Great leap forward might not be the best 'tactic" to convince a reader of one's correctness. Indeed, I evidently gave you too much credit in thinking you could parse the difference between socialism and state capitalism.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 07:13 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 06:03 |
|
Majorian posted:There’s a reason Peter the Great and Stalin are always in the top three most beloved Russians, whenever one news source or another runs one of those silly surveys. That's because naming yourself "The great" is cheating.
|
# ? Jul 12, 2019 12:52 |