|
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 | ||
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Wait wait wait.... No, government owned infrastructure is not exclusively a left policy. By that definition Bismark was a leftist for instituting welfare
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Or it'll push some Bernie Bros to watch more Joe Rogan... and then some Jordan Petersen... and then some Sargon of Akad... Some people have this crazy idea that Sanders' ideas and presentation are compelling to a lot of people, that his diagnosis of the problems is accurate enough to be inherently intuitive to a lot of folks, and that in situations where he can clearly articulate his ideas he will tend to win more people than you will lose. Suffice it to say most people here probably don't share your concern that the average Bernie bro was just as likely to have ended up as a Sargon of Akkad fan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
twodot posted:
Given the razor thin margins in 2016, you are objectively wrong. Anecdotally, I've had several friends watch the episode on my recommendations, all right leaning people, and they have all said that the interview has made them seriously consider Bernie as a candidate. These are people who never would have voted for Clinton because she's "too liberal". These are voters that can be reached through mediums like JRE. I agree that Rogan is generally a dumb rear end and has terrible views on many topics but if this helps Bernie, which I think it absolutely will, then so loving be it. Many Americans vote personality over policy (in fact most do) and this interview makes Bernie appear extremely reasonable, centered, and genuine. That is worth millions in campaign spending and it didn't cost him a dime. This is literally Bernie's most savvy political move in years.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Government infrastructure isn't inherently leftist policy. Hitler built the Autobahn, after all. Okay, that's a fair point and really obvious on a second read through.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:No, government owned infrastructure is not exclusively a left policy. By that definition Bismark was a leftist for instituting welfare we're talking about a specific policy not the concept of whether infrastructure is inherently leftist but you're right that i am incredibly dumb
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
eke out posted:we're talking about a specific policy not the concept of whether infrastructure is inherently leftist but you're right that i am incredibly dumb Me too
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
It's almost as if you could evaluate the policy on its merits by loving reading it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
Rogan’s admitted political philosophy is a Democratic Socialist system where he is free to smoke weed and tell offensive jokes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 21:43
|
|
|
eke out posted:none of you have posted even a single criticism, just that you're mad that the plan - vastly far to the left than anything we've ever done in terms of rural internet infrastructure - exists because it removes your ability to declare bernie automatically better The only reasonable response to this is "wait until the details of Sanders' plan on this issue are revealed" because historically he has always come out with things better (or at least equal to) everything Warren has produced every time we've had discussions similar to this (for example with housing or student loans). Also you guys often don't make it clear what your greater point is. Sanders' supporters' position is clear, but a lot of Warren supporters just post random good things about her or bad things about Sanders with an implied "and this is why I support Warren" but aren't willing to engage in discussions that directly compare the candidates' platforms as a whole. So Sanders supporters reasonably interpret your posts as being part of some greater pro-Warren argument and respond accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 21:50
|
|
|
If Bernie stans could read why would they stan Bernie
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The only reasonable response to this is "wait until the details of Sanders' plan on this issue are revealed" because historically he has always come out with things better (or at least equal to) everything Warren has produced every time we've had discussions similar to this (for example with housing or student loans). this is the thread for talking about things that happen during the primary if you want to do that you could try reading the couple hundred words posted and then say if you think it's good or bad. if not, i understand, it takes all types, god bless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The only reasonable response to this is "wait until the details of Sanders' plan on this issue are revealed" because historically he has always come out with things better (or at least equal to) everything Warren has produced every time we've had discussions similar to this (for example with housing or student loans). Except he was literally comparing the two policies. bernie's says "this would be good" and Warren's is extremely thorough and detailed on how it would work, be implemented, and overseen. Yet here we are as if the two policies are somehow equal? If Warren's plan was just "this would be good" you would have no issue tearing her down for that. I'm sure berie has a rural infrastructure plan that includes internet infrastructure, but warren has actually published her's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Except he was literally comparing the two policies. Bernie's is here. His and Warren's seem comparable overall.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Bernie's is here. His and Warren's seem comparable overall. He's obviously ashamed of his own policy -- he buried it at the bottom of a long rear end page about farming or some poo poo
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Bernie's is here. His and Warren's seem comparable overall. Ah, I didn't realize the broadband stuff was part of that plan. In that case the argument made by the Warren people even makes less sense, since the broadband stuff is just part of a broader plan of Sanders' that covers a bunch of other things as well. I was under the impression they were comparing Warren's broadband plan against a statement by Sanders about his intentions to expand broadband, rather than a plan of which that was just a part. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Except he was literally comparing the two policies. My point is that, given precedent during this primary, it is not rational to interpret this as "Warren will probably be better on broadband because she has this plan out," since people made this exact same argument when she released her student loan forgiveness plan and housing plan (only for Sanders to unsurprisingly release things just as detailed and generally better later). In a void, that interpretation might make sense, but we have enough context to realize that it's probably not accurate. And the broader thing I was referring to is the tendency of Warren supporters to be unwilling to engage in general discussions about why their candidate is better, with them instead just sort of pointing out specific pro-Warren or anti-Sanders things without ever engaging in a broader comparison. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Aug 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Bernie's is here. His and Warren's seem comparable overall. Thanks for that, but I am not sure I consider quote:Ensure access to high-speed broadband internet to every American. It is absurd that we do not have universal, high quality, affordable broadband access for every single American. According to the FCC, 39% of Americans living in rural areas lacked access to high-speed broadband internet and 30% don’t have access to mobile LTE broadband. We need strong broadband coverage across this country if business is going to thrive, create jobs and be competitive in the national and global economies. Quality broadband is essential for health care services, education and for the day-to-day needs of rural Americans. to be equivalent to: quote:A Public Option for Broadband
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Bernie's is here. His and Warren's seem comparable overall. are they? because it's pretty easy to tell side by side bernie posted:Ensure access to high-speed broadband internet to every American. It is absurd that we do not have universal, high quality, affordable broadband access for every single American. According to the FCC, 39% of Americans living in rural areas lacked access to high-speed broadband internet and 30% don’t have access to mobile LTE broadband. We need strong broadband coverage across this country if business is going to thrive, create jobs and be competitive in the national and global economies. Quality broadband is essential for health care services, education and for the day-to-day needs of rural Americans. warren posted:Make it clear in federal statute that municipalities have the right to build their own broadband networks. Many small towns and rural areas have turned to municipal networks to provide broadband access in places that the private market has failed to serve — but today, as many as 26 states have passed laws hindering or banning municipalities from building their own broadband infrastructure to protect the interests of giant telecom companies. We will preempt these laws and return this power to local governments. again, just to reiterate: bernie doesn't lose votes if you admit another person has good ideas or that there are areas in which he could improve or further develop his positions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:06
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:My point is that, given precedent during this primary, it is not rational to interpret this as "Warren will probably be better on housing because she has this plan out," since people made this exact same argument when she released her student loan forgiveness plan and housing plan (only for Sanders to unsurprisingly release things just as detailed and generally better later). In a void, that interpretation might make sense, but we have enough context to realize that it's probably not accurate. This is the exact opposite of what is happening here. This is a specific policy that is being pointed out and specific arguments as to why it is better. We aren't speaking in generalities here. We are working with what each campaign has presented.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:09
|
|
|
Yikes. That really speaks volumes about where Bernie's priorities lie (did he even write that paragraph? It doesnt sound like him at all.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
eke out posted:are they? because it's pretty easy to tell side by side I said Warren's plan was a good one several posts ago. Seriously, where are you getting this bizarre notion that I'm making GBS threads on her plan, or refusing to admit its positive points?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I said Warren's plan was a good one several posts ago. Seriously, where are you getting this bizarre notion that I'm making GBS threads on her plan, or refusing to admit its positive points? literally the only thing you have said is that the notion of rural broadband is good, then you said you didn't read her plan. that was two posts ago don't do this gaslighting poo poo where you pretend you always thought the opposite, it's weird as gently caress and anyone can press the ? on your posts dude eke out fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Aug 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
Reminder that these are smaller parts of larger rural revitalization plans, not specifically broadband internet plans. I get that you're nerds who are hyper-focused on your ability to torrent anime at reliable speeds, but maybe compare the full plans instead of just this one element. What stood out to me in Warren's plan is that she wrote more words about broadband than about helping rural people make ends meet, and she still says she's for Medicare for All while refusing to define what she thinks Medicare for All is beyond "access to affordable care" and "lower health care costs." Beyond that her plan is basically a carbon copy of the plan Bernie put out months ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:This is the exact opposite of what is happening here. This is a specific policy that is being pointed out and specific arguments as to why it is better. Are there, though? I haven't seen anyone actually present an argument for why Warren's plan would lead to better outcomes, at most it just seems to be people operating under the assumption that more details = better. Also the problem with Warren's plans isn't the detail or lack thereof, it's that pretty often they turn out to be bad plans on closer examination which casts the whole competence narrative around her into serious doubt.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:16
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It's almost as if you could evaluate the policy on its merits by loving reading it. What’s better Option 1: quote:The quadruped animal, more specifically a mammal, which is colloquially known as a “canine” to the majority of people (σ=0.0387772), and which is captured by the Unicode-16 value U+1F145, also known as an “emoji”, which is the Japanese term that combines the Japanese word 絵 (え) meaning “picture” and the Japanese word 文字(まじ) meaning "character", displaced itself toward the Cartesian origin point (R2=0.97664) and initiated the bodily functions required for defecation to the logical termination point. Option 2: quote:The dog poo poo in the middle of the living room
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:18
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:My point is that, given precedent during this primary, it is not rational to interpret this as "Warren will probably be better on broadband because she has this plan out," since people made this exact same argument when she released her student loan forgiveness plan and housing plan (only for Sanders to unsurprisingly release things just as detailed and generally better later). In a void, that interpretation might make sense, but we have enough context to realize that it's probably not accurate. Wow, this is absolutely not true. We've been more than willing to admit when Warren's plans have shortcomings--her $500/month prescription costs plank and her rent control plan come to mind--but the fact is that she supports abolishing the filibuster, which, if she becomes President, gives her plans more likelihood of actually coming to fruition. More Warren supporters would be willing to engage if there wasn't a general sentiment of "If you do not support Bernie Sanders as your first choice, you are a morally bankrupt lanyard" among others. Wicked Them Beats posted:What stood out to me in Warren's plan is that she wrote more words about broadband than about helping rural people make ends meet, and she still says she's for Medicare for All while refusing to define what she thinks Medicare for All is beyond "access to affordable care" and "lower health care costs." Beyond that her plan is basically a carbon copy of the plan Bernie put out months ago. Treating broadband Internet as a public utility would go a long way towards helping rural folks make ends meet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:19
|
|
|
eke out posted:literally the only thing you have said is that the notion of rural broadband is good, then you said you didn't read her plan. that was two posts ago Well, now I've read it, and while I agree that her plan regarding rural broadband is more detailed than Bernie's, the rest of his plan looks at least as good as Warren's. His plans to enforce antitrust laws against agribusiness are certainly more detailed than hers, for example, and his plan to incentivize rural coops definitely puts his strategy ahead of hers. quote:don't do this gaslighty poo poo where you pretend you always thought the opposite, it's weird as gently caress My dude, you're the one projecting some bizarre malicious anti-Warren patina on everything I say, when I'm one of the more "okay with Warren" posters here. That's weird as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:21
|
|
|
Phone posted:What’s better This is in no way analogous to what Warren is doing; nor is it in any way germane to the discussion at hand. Her plan is good because it is good, not because it has more words, not because it has more details, it is good because it will make the lives of millions of people better if it becomes reality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:My dude, you're the one projecting some bizarre malicious anti-Warren patina on everything I say, when I'm one of the more "okay with Warren" posters here. That's weird as gently caress. you literally just lied about your own post history in this thread, then said i'm crazy for mentioning it. it's such a overt kind of gaslighting that it's almost impressive in its audacity - you don't even bother defending yourself (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:25
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Government infrastructure isn't inherently leftist policy. Hitler built the Autobahn, after all. I'm genuinely curious what you and the other "Leftists" ITT consider Leftism to be, because I personally view it as just being pro collectivism and anti-authoritarianism contrasting with it's opposite of Rightism" which is pro-authoritarianism and a belief in "exceptionalism of the individual" but given how so many of you seem to believe that it's something that can be applied from the top down by force leads me to suspect that your definition is quite a bit different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Wow, this is absolutely not true. We've been more than willing to admit when Warren's plans have shortcomings--her $500/month prescription costs plank and her rent control plan come to mind--but the fact is that she supports abolishing the filibuster, which, if she becomes President, gives her plans more likelihood of actually coming to fruition. Well, hardly anyone is actually willing to make a case for why they think Warren is the better candidate. The fact that people are offended that other people think their politics is bad doesn't really change that. Sanders supporters think Warren supporters are wrong. There is no obligation for us to have some "even if we may disagree on this, we think your opinion is good and respectable" view on this topic. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:This is the exact opposite of what is happening here. This is a specific policy that is being pointed out and specific arguments as to why it is better. But the Warren plan isn't better - it is more detailed. We literally don't know whether it is better than what Sanders ends up coming up with, and repeated precedent makes it extremely unlikely that it won't be at least as good. In a void, it wouldn't make sense to just assume that a more fleshed out version of that portion of the Sanders rural revitalization proposal would be at least as good or better than Warren's, but we have precedent of this happening before. People were making the same argument about Warren having a detailed student loan plan or housing plan, before Sanders ended up releasing something at least as good. Basically, comparing detail vs lack of detail makes sense when you're comparing with someone who you are unsure of who has a pattern of not being detailed or having plans with bad details. This isn't the case with Sanders, who has demonstrated that he has just as strong of an understanding of issues/policy. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Aug 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:26
|
|
|
eke out posted:you literally just lied about your own post history in this thread, then said i'm crazy for mentioning it. Neither of those things happened.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:27
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:But the Warren plan isn't better - it is more detailed. We literally don't know whether it is better than what Sanders ends up coming up with The first sentence literally contradicts the second. You see that, right? If Sanders doesn't have a plan yet, how can you say the Warren plan "isn't as good"? I feel like you and others are really just struggling to avoid acknowledging that someone besides Bernie had a good policy idea. Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Aug 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:28
|
|
|
eke out posted:literally the only thing you have said is that the notion of rural broadband is good, then you said you didn't read her plan. that was two posts ago What do you think comparable means? As in, if I were to say that two things were comparable, and you know I thought one of those things was good, what could you guess about my position on the other?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:31
|
|
|
I'm trying to wrap my head around the new framing that "detailed policymaking is liberal." like the Five Year Plans should have been two paragraphs or less.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:34
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:The first sentence literally contradicts the second. You see that, right? If Sanders doesn't have a plan yet, how can you say the Warren plan "isn't as good"? I feel like you and others are really just struggling to avoid acknowledging that someone besides Bernie had a good policy idea. They're the same policy idea. Unless you think a Sanders-drafted broadband infrastructure bill would end up being a giveaway to Comcast or something. And of course Warren hasn't actually drafted anything either, she wrote a Medium post. We don't know for certain what a Warren bill would look like because she doesn't seem to put out quite as many bills as she does "plans."
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Skex posted:I'm genuinely curious what you and the other "Leftists" ITT consider Leftism to be, because I personally view it as just being pro collectivism and anti-authoritarianism contrasting with it's opposite of Rightism" which is pro-authoritarianism and a belief in "exceptionalism of the individual" but given how so many of you seem to believe that it's something that can be applied from the top down by force leads me to suspect that your definition is quite a bit different. I'm genuinely curious how this poo poo has even the most tenuous connection to the post of mine that you quoted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:They're the same policy idea. Unless you think a Sanders-drafted broadband infrastructure bill would end up being a giveaway to Comcast or something. I don't understand...so because Warren hasn't introduced it as legislation in a Senate where it won't even get a vote, this makes it bad?
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:43
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:The first sentence literally contradicts the second. You see that, right? If Sanders doesn't have a plan yet, how can you say the Warren plan "isn't as good"? I feel like you and others are really just struggling to avoid acknowledging that someone besides Bernie had a good policy idea. Since you seem to have missed the rest of the post you quoted, I pointed out that this exact same discussion happened before when Warren released her student loan forgiveness and housing plans. People made the same argument you're making here - Warren should be assumed to be better on those issues because Sanders hasn't released a detailed plan yet. Only, unsurprisingly, he did release a plan that was better later. As a result, it doesn't make sense to come to any conclusion about who is better on the topic of broadband, because there's no reason to think that Sanders would actually do something worse than Warren on the topic if elected. The most rational conclusion here is "wait and see" (if not outright "Sanders will probably be good on this like pretty much everything else"). As I said, in a vacuum your opinion on this would make sense. But this isn't a vacuum and we have a lot of precedent with which to judge these candidates. Many Warren supporters have an inaccurate perception of Sanders as being less competent in terms of policy than Warren, and it comes out in discussions like this. And all of this still has no bearing on why someone would support Warren in the primary. Obviously I can't force anyone to actually make their case for why they support Warren (or whoever, but in this subforum usually Warren), but it ends up coming off as kinda disingenuous when people still make anti-Sanders/pro-Warren comments in this thread without tying them into any overall argument for why they support their candidate. I get that you guys probably view it as bizarrely combative, but people not supporting Sanders (who should be according to their stated values) has a good chance of being what leads to Biden or Harris being nominated instead. Fritz Coldcockin posted:I don't understand...so because Warren hasn't introduced it as legislation in a Senate where it won't even get a vote, this makes it bad? It's more that it's deeply ironic that the candidate who has written far more actual legislation as part of his platform has the reputation as "the one who isn't a detailed policy wonk," while the one with medium posts is. It should be a red flag that this sort of criticism against Sanders relies on some sort of bizarre political "god of the gaps" argument where you're just supposed to assume that Sanders is bad on the few issues where he hasn't been specific yet, while criticism in the other direction can point to Warren being directly worse on issues like foreign policy or healthcare. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Aug 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:44
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Since you seem to have missed the rest of the post you quoted, I pointed out that this exact same discussion happened before when Warren released her student loan forgiveness and housing plans. People made the same argument you're making here - Warren should be assumed to be better on those issues because Sanders hasn't released a detailed plan yet. Only, unsurprisingly, he did release a plan that was better later. This is not what happened on student loan forgiveness; he proposed a funding mechanism that was completely unworkable. I feel like many people showed why already. quote:As I said, in a vacuum your opinion on this would make sense. But this isn't a vacuum and we have a lot of precedent with which to judge these candidates. Many Warren supporters have an inaccurate perception of Sanders as being less competent in terms of policy than Warren, and it comes out in discussions like this. I don't believe Sanders is less competent in terms of policy; but I believe that he places less value on campaigning with policy and more on appeals to raw emotion. That isn't to say that appeals to emotion, especially on things like immigration and student loan forgiveness, aren't very useful, but you're using them to decide that Warren is some sort of crypto-fascist because she doesn't do this. Declaring Sanders superior because his campaign DOESN'T rely on policy specifics is just as intellectually dishonest as claiming Warren is superior solely because her plans use lots of words. It sort of feels like that's what you guys are doing. And there is one principle I mentioned above: even if Warren's plans are only about 90-95% similar to Sanders' in many respects, she will advocate for abolishing the Senate filibuster. If this comes to pass and she is President, her plans may actually become reality. Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Aug 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 00:29 |
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:I don't understand...so because Warren hasn't introduced it as legislation in a Senate where it won't even get a vote, this makes it bad? Not bad, but it shows a potential lack of commitment. And I don't particularly trust Elizabeth "Capitalist To My Bones" Warren to do the right thing if she hasn't taken steps to lock herself into a course of action.
|
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 22:51
|
|