|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Klansman |
|
8 | 0.91% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
578 | 65.76% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
185 | 21.05% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
4 | 0.46% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
0 | 0% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
3 | 0.34% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
3 | 0.34% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
9 | 1.02% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
2 | 0.23% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
4 | 0.46% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
19 | 2.16% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
19 | 2.16% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
8 | 0.91% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.11% |
| Just like in real life, nobody voted for Hickenlooper |
|
2 | 0.23% |
| Jeffrey Epstein, the MCC Most Hated |
|
9 | 1.02% |
| KKKillary KKKlinton |
|
16 | 1.82% |
| Some other idiot not in this list |
|
9 | 1.02% |
| Total: | 879 votes | ||
|
Uglycat posted:you gotta admit it's a hell of a long game, considering how long I've been active across multiple platforms. you'd be a lot more convincing if you spent less time boasting about your resume as an activist and more time actually presenting arguments
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 19:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
mormonpartyboat posted:mayoral orel I don't know if I love or hate you for this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 19:44
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/1163884929266192384
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It is pretty normal for candidates to propose new laws too. y'all were literally just arguing that any program (like i suggested) where states can opt out is fundamentally flawed, now you've pivoted to "bernie's plan already does what you suggest" if bernie's plan is creating a massive new grant program, awesome, how does it work? and why did you, yourself, last page, reply to me Trabisnikof posted:So did you miss this whole ACA medicare expansion thing where Republican states turned down free money for healthcare? do you think bernie can just make idaho double it's PD spending or something. what gives. why was it bad when i said it but good now that you've decided bernie meant it all along
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:you gotta admit it's a hell of a long game, considering how long I've been active across multiple platforms. Do you get the photographer job if he is elected? is he blackmailing you? Why does Mayor pete hold such sway over you?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:How, how I ask you, does this keep happening? Something to do with russians, I can only assume. Oh and puppets, apparently?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Do you get the photographer job if he is elected? is he blackmailing you? Why does Mayor pete hold such sway over you? There's a nonzero chance that he's actually Mayor Pete doing some deep reconnaissance
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Whataboutism is a bullshit cry that's only used to defend hypocrisy from accurate criticism. If you're not a hypocrite, you can easily defeat 'whataboutism' by being consistent. Hypocrisy doesn't make the original issue go away. If I criticized you about unhealthy eating, while myself eating unhealthy crap, you could point to my hypocrisy... but it wouldn't make your own actions any better. In an absolute sense, your ethical behaviour doesn't depend on my ethical behaviour, although my attempt to attack you on ethical grounds does depend on my own record. That's why it's really easy to use whataboutism to muddy the waters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:Something to do with russians, I can only assume. Calibanibal is actually Putin irl, hypnotic KGB powers and all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:That's right. I'm an anarchist, antifascist, anti-capitalist atheist activist. And I'm saying the depictions (on this board and elsewhere) of Pete Buttigieg - a statist, capitalist, theist - are unfair and inaccurate. I'm sorry if this blows your mind. Actual footage is a good thing! Here's some footage of Mayor Pete talking about his vision for health care: private insurance will still exist, but people can buy into a version of Medicare which will be sold on an exchange. He calls it "Medicare for all who want it" https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1105242248533274624 What do you think of this plan, Mr. anti-capitalist activist?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:00
|
|
|
eke out posted:y'all were literally just arguing that any program (like i suggested) where states can opt out is fundamentally flawed, now you've pivoted to "bernie's plan already does what you suggest" You sue them to establish a constitutional right to a minimum standard of public defense, and you use the availability of federal money to blunt any defense argument that it would impossibly burden the state financially to furnish that standard. Your argument makes no sense, a second ago you said opt-in federal dollars for public defenders is the best idea, but now suddenly it won't work because it's opt-in. What? eke out posted:if "triple national spending on indigent defense" means "pass new legislation creating a huge federal fund, twice as large as all annual state and federal spending combined" then that's great, he supports the thing I suggested! That is the most natural reading of that line yes: make the funding available, list what it will pay for, follow up with enforcement actions to ensure states spend it as intended. You have to tie yourself into semantic pretzels to read it any other way. I think that's why we were talking past each other, I didn't realize you thought that $14 billion in funding was just going to, idk, be swept into a pile for Bernie to sleep on dragon-style instead of being used to pay for the proposals listed immediately afterward. This is the problem with the discourse that I was alluding to before, there's this emotional reaction that Sanders must be stupid because he doesn't talk like an Ivy League alum, and so starting with that conclusion we have to engage in all this motivated reasoning to find sillyass interpretations of straightforward proposals in order to "show" that they can't possibly work.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Do you get the photographer job if he is elected? is he blackmailing you? Why does Mayor pete hold such sway over you? 1. No. I've never worked for him, never worked for the city. I don't have any income - I'm post-capitalist. 2. No. He got nuthin' on me. 3. I've been paying closer attention (to South Bend politics and to Pete's career) than anybody else on this forum, and I call it how I see it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:02
|
|
|
The Pussy Boss posted:
I want single payer. I'm not at all arguing he's my idea candidate. I am paying attention to all of the candidates available to us, however, and it matters to me which way the wind blows.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:03
|
|
|
The Pussy Boss posted:Actual footage is a good thing! Here's some footage of Mayor Pete talking about his vision for health care: private insurance will still exist, but people can buy into a version of Medicare which will be sold on an exchange. He calls it "Medicare for all who want it" The phrase "Medicare for all" has lost all meaning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:04
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:3. I've been paying closer attention (to South Bend politics and to Pete's career) than anybody else on this forum, and I call it how I see it. And that's the issue isn't it. When someone posts exactly how Pete working at an evil company taught him how to conduct a racist home destroying program while hiding the evidence, you say "well I didn't see that at this rally" as if it refutes anything. Good job, you've been convinced by his charisma. That's all that's happened.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That is the most natural reading of that line yes: make the funding available, list what it will pay for, follow up with enforcement actions to ensure states spend it as intended. You have to tie yourself into semantic pretzels to read it any other way. how do you give it to states, vitalsigns? also how do you get a $14B program passed, when you won't kill the filibuster and in a best-case scenario your control of the senate depends on Joe Manchin and half a dozen republicans agreeing with you? i bothered to actually post in good faith about the comparison between the two, and y'all have seized upon one of the few criticisms i had of bernie's program as if I didn't say the entire thing was on balance pretty good. and now, you've moved to declaring that warren supporters are "emotional" which is probably a little too close to your actual beliefs to say out loud - you might want to keep that part unsaid next time you have this same argument
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:Hypocrisy doesn't make the original issue go away. If I criticized you about unhealthy eating, while myself eating unhealthy crap, you could point to my hypocrisy... but it wouldn't make your own actions any better. In an absolute sense, your ethical behaviour doesn't depend on my ethical behaviour, although my attempt to attack you on ethical grounds does depend on my own record. That's why it's really easy to use whataboutism to muddy the waters. Yes actually it does, if you say I should be punished for not eating healthy, yet you don't think you should be punished for not eating healthy, then clearly you are not arguing from a consistent ethics, you just want me to be punished and healthy eating is the excuse. Ethics are normative, they are based on arbitrary axioms that can't be disproven. The only way to attack someone's ethical judgment is to attack the consistency of that judgment with the rest of their ethics. I could assert that David Sirota should get life in prison for wearing an ugly shirt, and you can't prove that this ethic is wrong. You could say "so you think everyone who has ever worn an ugly shirt should go to prison" and if I say "no I'm going to let the other 7 billion humans slide on that, but it is still wrong and Sirota belongs in prison" you can safely conclude I'm full of poo poo. Yes some pedant could pipe up "ah but you haven't proven anything, Sirota's ethical behavior doesn't depend on anyone else's ethical behavior, and just because VitalSigns is letting 7 billion people off the hook doesn't mean his ethics are wrong or make Sirota any less guilty and deserving of life in prison" but should you care. No.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:10
|
|
|
eke out posted:how do you give it to states, vitalsigns? also how do you get a $14B program passed, when you won't kill the filibuster and in a best-case scenario your control of the senate depends on Joe Manchin and half a dozen republicans agreeing with you? Why are these criticisms of Bernie's plan and not also Warren's? They're basically the fallback criticisms of any sort of progressive policy plan (including all of Warren's). Especially considering the president doesn't have the power to kill the filibuster, that's up to senate dems like Joe Manchin.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Calibanibal is actually Putin irl, hypnotic KGB powers and all. Stunningly insidious. Watching the birth of a new Soviet Propaganda Technique and we're completely powerless before it. At least someday we'll be able to invoke Him + ism to dismiss arguments out of hand. Silver lining!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
eke out posted:how do you give it to states, vitalsigns? also how do you get a $14B program passed, when you won't kill the filibuster and in a best-case scenario your control of the senate depends on Joe Manchin and half a dozen republicans agreeing with you? The first question is fuckin dumb, the federal government already gives grants to states for tons of poo poo, it's not some impossible thing. The rest is an objection that applies to any proposal by any candidate to change any law whatsoever that McConnell and/or Manchin doesn't like. It not only applies to Sanders, it applies to your very own proposal to grant opt-in funds to state and local governments for public defenders, which really goes back to my point that there's this weird double standard where nothing Sanders proposes can possibly work even if it's identical to something the person making that criticism proposed 5 minutes ago. eke out posted:and now, you've moved to declaring that warren supporters are "emotional" which is probably a little too close to your actual beliefs to say out loud - you might want to keep that part unsaid next time you have this same argument Not Warren supporters in general, just specifically your arguments, that you're making right now, are fundamentally based on emotion. A candidate you don't like feels wrong, so any law he suggests can't possibly happen, even when you yourself proposed the exact same law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Why are these criticisms of Bernie's plan and not also Warren's? They're basically the fallback criticisms of any sort of progressive policy plan (including all of Warren's). warren directly advocates for killing the filibuster, which in said best-case scenario you could actually do without manchin. if your position is that no matter how hard warren supports it, she can't get it done, well, that's definitely an opinion you can have. but she only needs 50 votes for that, while bernie needs a half dozen (at best -- getting 54 democrats in the senate is like a dream scenario) republican votes for literally every bit of legislation he wants to pass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:17
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:That's right. I'm an anarchist, antifascist, anti-capitalist atheist activist. And I'm saying the depictions (on this board and elsewhere) of Pete Buttigieg - a statist, capitalist, theist - are unfair and inaccurate. I'm sorry if this blows your mind. You are a deranged loon, and you make that more and more obvious with each post you type. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:21
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Not Warren supporters in general, just specifically your arguments, that you're making right now, are fundamentally based on emotion. You've shifted your position a half dozen times, and now have declared me "emotional" for replying to your new takes. I'll pass.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
Yes, we all know uglycat is a crazy person? That's what is so lovable about him? He does seem to have suggested on the last page that ol' Mayor Pete isn't actually a theist, which is pretty weird.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:25
|
|
|
eke out posted:warren directly advocates for killing the filibuster, which in said best-case scenario you could actually do without manchin. Ok so your problem isn't with any of the specifics of Bernie's plan at all, it's that he hasn't committed to killing the filibuster therefore all his plans are bad. Even though he has already said that he will use the reconciliation process to pass legislation by using a simple majority to change what is allowed under reconciliation which is functionally the nuclear option anyway. E: lol the projection, you just moved the goalposts into another galaxy and are accusing other people of shifting their positions
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Yes, we all know uglycat is a crazy person? That's what is so lovable about him? If I did, I mistyped. He's a 'churchgoer' (the way he uses the language). I was trying to juxtapose myself and Pete; one point of divergence is that he's a theist and I'm an atheist. This is relevant in many ways, in particular because he's a 'troop' (and has therefore sworn an oath to the constitution; and oaths are different for theists).
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:29
|
|
|
That Pete is a proper g*d-fearing theist is the first good thing I've heard about him
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:32
|
|
|
eke out posted:You've shifted your position a half dozen times, and now have declared me "emotional" for replying to your new takes. I'll pass. I haven't shifted anything, all I've done is explained why your various objections to Sanders' plan lack merit. Saying "your first claim is wrong because of X, and your second because of Y" is not shifting positions but if that's what you need to believe to save face on this one, go ahead dude. It's clear you're not going to change your mind since you've shifted from "opt-in funding is good" to "opt-in funding can't work" when you realized Bernie agreed with you
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:35
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:If I did, I mistyped. He's a 'churchgoer' (the way he uses the language). I was trying to juxtapose myself and Pete; one point of divergence is that he's a theist and I'm an atheist. This is relevant in many ways, in particular because he's a 'troop' (and has therefore sworn an oath to the constitution; and oaths are different for theists). Why
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:43
|
|
|
because you're swearing to your god that you actually believe in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:because you're swearing to your god that you actually believe in. But why does that make an oath different. Are you implying that non-theists can't, or aren't being honest when they take oaths? You're awesome Uglycat, but you sure are a mystery.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:But why does that make an oath different. Are you implying that non-theists can't, or aren't being honest when they take oaths? I believe a non-theist is more likely than a theist to say 'well gently caress, I took that oath but now I know a lot more than I did then!' I may be wrong, I've not done any empirical study on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:50
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:I believe a non-theist is more likely than a theist to say 'well gently caress, I took that oath but now I know a lot more than I did then!' I swear to God if you keep posting
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:53
|
|
|
You see for theists oaths are unbreakable, like Harry Potter vows or Stygian oaths. In fact, dishonesty and treason never existed until the rise of atheism. -- Something me, totally a post-capitalist atheist, would say, and not some sort of wolf child raised in a house filled only with mannequins and a gideon bible imagining what real people think and talk like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 20:58
|
|
|
Breakfast All Day posted:You see for theists oaths are unbreakable, like Harry Potter vows or Stygian oaths. In fact, dishonesty and treason never existed until the rise of atheism. -- Something me, totally a post-capitalist atheist, would say, and not some sort of wolf child raised in a house filled only with mannequins and a gideon bible imagining what real people think and talk like. lol this is a silly quibble and I ain't fixin' to die on that hill (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kenvogel/status/1163800597751050240
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:06
|
|
|
This was also the Dr. for Phineas Gage so we know he's legit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
There was absolutely no malpractice whatsoever!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
There's plenty of God-fearing theists that swear oaths on the Bible in Congress right now. I'm talking about Republicans. Do you think they're really going to care about oaths they made?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:22 |
|
|
Just having a normal day reminding everyone that I am not brain damaged. Why do you keep asking?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:10
|
|
