|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
if we all just come together and #resist behind Hillary Clinton time will reverse itself and Trump will disappear into the ether like a bad memory
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't want to give the right this argument on a plate. Buddy, the right doesn't give a gently caress what arguments the left does or doesn't "give them". They've been making poo poo up out of whole cloth since the early 70's, and now it's their entire industry. Aaron Sorkin did not write the plot for the United States of America in the 21st century. There is no meritocracy or fairness or political capital anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Who gives a gently caress? Like, honestly. One is dead and the other is politically irrelevant other than making a celebrity appearance at the DNC. Indict the gently caress out of them. I'd rather be able to point to FDR as an exemplary president and one that contemporary democrats should aspire to emulate than to smear him as a slaveowner. Bernie agrees with me. Dr. Fishopolis posted:The Democratic Party has been losing ground for more than a decade and, as you say, let an existential threat into the White House through sheer, mind boggling incompetence. Tearing down the entire edifice of the Democratic Party is pretty much the only good move left. Uh, what? If you don't like establishment democratic policies, attack those policies. Don't smear the leaders with half-baked accusations that are in fact more salient against progressive heroes. I have no problem demanding prison reform. I have no problem calling out democrats who haven't done enough to reform the prison system. I have a problem smearing one democrat as a slaveowner to try and relitigate a fractious primary, because that smear is more applicable to Democrats who we should be elevating and emulating.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
The problem with JC's statement is that the Democrats are so loving inept they play into the worst attacks of the Republicans. When Corbyn's manifesto for the Labour party leaked, it was supposedly going to sink their chances, but it was so radical and left wing that it turned out to actually be what the people wanted and made people vote for him even more than before.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I have no problem demanding prison reform. I have no problem calling out democrats who haven't done enough to reform the prison system. I have a problem smearing one democrat as a slaveowner to try and relitigate a fractious primary, because that smear is more applicable to Democrats who we should be elevating and emulating. It will be easier to oust bad Dems if they can be tarred as supporting a beneficiary of modern day slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It will be easier to oust bad Dems if they can be tarred as supporting a beneficiary of modern day slavery. It is also easier to oust bad Dems if you call them secret Muslims, or the Antichrist, or the son of the guy who killed JFK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It will be easier to oust bad Dems if they can be tarred as supporting a beneficiary of modern day slavery. Bernie Sanders supported Hillary Clinton and was a surrogate for her campaign. Think this through.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Sarcastr0 posted:It is also easier to oust bad Dems if you call them secret Muslims, or the Antichrist, or the son of the guy who killed JFK. Those attacks would not mobilize progressives. The slaver owner attack will.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Uh, what? If you don't like establishment democratic policies, attack those policies. Don't smear the leaders with half-baked accusations that are in fact more salient against progressive heroes. What policies? They don't loving have any, whch is a big part of why Clinton lost, and a big part of why they're going to lose more again if they don't stop spitting out platitudes. "WE BELIEVE WE CAN WIN WHEN WE LEAD WITH OUR VALUES"
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Bernie Sanders supported Hillary Clinton and was a surrogate for her campaign. Think this through. I have thought this through. Everybody paying the slightest bit of attention recognizes a rift through the DNC with Bernie on one side and the more centrists democrats on the other. Even if Sanders does get burned by the attack, what would it matter so long as centrist Dems are losing primaries?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Is "Hillary owned slaves" really a smear, because Hillary did own* slaves *  technically her slaves were employment compensation for her husband, not her personal property
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 00:46
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:What policies? They don't loving have any, whch is a big part of why Clinton lost, and a big part of why they're going to lose more again if they don't stop spitting out platitudes. This is obviously wrong and dumb, but it doesn't actually address my point regardless. If you think democrats literally have zero policies, attack democrats for having zero policies, don't smear one of them with an attack that's actually more salient against the democrats who had good policies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
That's just more "if they go low we go high" poo poo. There's no reason not to smear your political enemies with whatever will stick so long as it is advantageous to the policies you support.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:* That she by self-admission took an active role of authority in her participation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'd rather be able to point to FDR as an exemplary president and one that contemporary democrats should aspire to emulate than to smear him as a slaveowner. Bernie agrees with me. 1. Willingly whitewashing someone's personal history to make them a better figurehead for your argument is a bad idea that will bite you in the rear end, whether that's FDR, Hillary Clinton or anyone else. If you have to knowingly lie to people to make a convincing argument, find another argument. 2. FDR established FPI and therefore UNICOR in 1934 because at the time it was better than the convict leasing, chain gangs and peonage systems it replaced. It sucks, the whole system sucks, but it made some amount of sense in context. He made a compromise in the right direction, but didn't solve the problem. This is in no way comparable to Hillary Clinton living in a house staffed by prison labor in the late 1980s and her husband's administration making the whole system worse by an order of magnitude. You're the one who brought up FDR, but the comparison is ignorant at best and willingly misleading at worst. Nobody is attacking FDR but you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Maybe instead of worrying about ~the optics~ of Hillary Clinton using slave labor, we kick her and her defenders out, because they used and were fine with using slave labor?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:That's just more "if they go low we go high" poo poo. There's no reason not to smear your political enemies with whatever will stick so long as it is advantageous to the policies you support. Also, Hillary Clinton spend the entire loving campaign flinging poo poo at Trump, much as she flung poo poo at Bernie, much as she flung poo poo at Obama. I'd love to see an example of her actually responding to mudslinging with some sort of soaring rhetoric because I sure as poo poo don't remember it. Unless "well if you go to my website, you'll see" or "well if you buy my book you'll find" counts as "going high". edit: also when I said "order of magnitude" earlier, I should have said "approximately seven point five orders of magnitude" because that's what happened. http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Trends-in-US-Corrections.pdf Dr. Fishopolis fucked around with this message at 01:04 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Who gives a gently caress? Like, honestly. One is dead and the other is politically irrelevant other than making a celebrity appearance at the DNC. Indict the gently caress out of them. Given how Bernie is trying to tie himself to FDR's New Deal legacy, perhaps not destroying FDR's image might be strategically wise?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Given how Bernie is trying to tie himself to FDR's New Deal legacy, perhaps not destroying FDR's image might be strategically wise? Who cares what Bernie is doing? Nobody is destroying FDR's image other than JeffersonClay
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Given how Bernie is trying to tie himself to FDR's New Deal legacy, perhaps not destroying FDR's image might be strategically wise? wait how does saying "hillary clinton lived in a house run by prison labor" destroy FDR's image in any universe other than the one JeffersonClay inhabits?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Given how Bernie is trying to tie himself to FDR's New Deal legacy, perhaps not destroying FDR's image might be strategically wise? Bernie can adopt the good parts of the New Deal and reject the bad parts. A DPRK-like hagiographic false history of FDR is not required nor wise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
The only way FDR is getting tarred as a racist is in the public mind is if centrist Dems are the ones doing. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they tried and it might work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I have thought this through. Everybody paying the slightest bit of attention recognizes a rift through the DNC with Bernie on one side and the more centrists democrats on the other. Even if Sanders does get burned by the attack, what would it matter so long as centrist Dems are losing primaries? I hate to break it to you but attacking Hillary Clinton as a slaveowner isn't actually going to benefit anyone in democratic primaries. I'm pretty sure the POC who voted for her by massive margins are not going to be impressed with the argument that they are nefarious racists who need to be purged. VitalSigns posted:Is "Hillary owned slaves" really a smear, because Hillary did own* slaves Then Jimmy Carter is a slaveowner, too, and he actually had the power to free his slaves, but did nothing. And FDR enslaved more than 100,000 people. Not sure I agree this is a brilliant gambit. VitalSigns posted:Bernie can adopt the good parts of the New Deal and reject the bad parts. A DPRK-like hagiographic false history of FDR is not required nor wise. No one's calling for one. We should discuss FDR's failings with nuance. We shouldn't scream about him enslaving a hundred thousand people in a short-sighted gambit to win some intra-party squabble. This principle applies to every democrat. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 01:23 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I hate to break it to you but attacking Hillary Clinton as a slaveowner isn't actually going to benefit anyone in democratic primaries. I'm pretty sure the POC who voted for her by massive margins are not going to be impressed with the argument that they are nefarious racists who need to be purged. JeffersonClay posted:Then Jimmy Carter is a slaveowner, too, and he actually had the power to free his slaves, but did nothing. And FDR enslaved more than 100,000 people. Not sure I agree this is a brilliant gambit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
Correct. Wait until you find out about what Jefferson did. It'll blow your mind!
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
I would be totally down to poo poo all over carter's legacy. He did nothing good as president.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
i'm not sure why you think we should be overly concerned with the misbehavior of dead people and people completeley removed from politics, as opposed to the behavior of someone who considers herself the leader of our party jc. i guess it's cause you want to deflect from hillary being terrible (and you having been terrible in defense of her) but it's a really weak argument and rather silly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:26
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:wait how does saying "hillary clinton lived in a house run by prison labor" destroy FDR's image in any universe other than the one JeffersonClay inhabits? If Hillary Clinton was a slaveowner from living in a house with prison labor, then FDR was a slaver, for interning a hundred thousand japanese americans who were used as prison labor. It's not loving hard, dude. rudatron posted:Maybe instead of worrying about ~the optics~ of Hillary Clinton using slave labor, we kick her and her defenders out, because they used and were fine with using slave labor? How about we do the same thing with FDR's defenders oh wait that's real dumb. The Kingfish posted:It will be easier to oust bad Dems if they can be tarred as supporting a beneficiary of modern day slavery. The Kingfish posted:Nobody will be smearing POC voters that doesn't make sense. You dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Hillary Clinton is currently working to keep the DNC from shifting left. That's the difference.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:30
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Then Jimmy Carter is a slaveowner, too
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:You keep saying this, but you still haven't shared any sort of evidence this is true. The Georgia Governor's mansion uses convict labor in exactly the same way as Arkansas does. I'm not going to bother digging up the date that it started, but I'm more than confident it's before Carter's tenure. Feel free to prove me wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
If FDR were running for president today we absolutely should scream about internment because it must never happen again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Except it indicts FDR and Carter simultaneously, and to a much more significant degree. If the argument is "you supported a person who benefitted from prison labor, and thus your views on race can be safely ignored", none of us get away clean. Maybe we shouldn't tear down the entire edifice of the Democratic Party in order to relitigate a fractious primary--particularly now, given we've got an existential threat in the White House, and given the right is very happy to use our infighting to attack the party's credibility on racial justice as a whole, as they did with "Hillary owned slaves!!!" A week ago. JeffersonClay, the centrist dems put a candidate who had owned slaves up against a senile game show host. They then proceeded to lose to him without him ever even finding that part out. Pragmatically speaking, whoever we've got doing the vetting REALLY needs to step up their game, because their selection metrics are not producing good candidates. Leaving this system in place without any changes has been shown, in about as apocalyptic a way as possible, to be a wonderful way to lose and keep losing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:JeffersonClay, the centrist dems put a candidate who had owned slaves up against a senile game show host. They then proceeded to lose to him without him ever even finding that part out. Y'all don't seriously think that nobody knew this about hillary before a week ago, right? The book was on the best seller list for 18 weeks. People have written articles and blog posts about that very section multiple times before the 2016 campaign. The reason Trump didn't use it as an attack is 1) nobody really cares and 2) republicans support prison labor. VitalSigns posted:If FDR were running for president today we absolutely should scream about internment because it must never happen again. Hillary Clinton is not running for president, either. The Kingfish posted:The only way FDR is getting tarred as a racist is in the public mind is if centrist Dems are the ones doing. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they tried and it might work. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-did-fdrs-new-deal-harm-blacks quote:Why Did FDR’s New Deal Harm Blacks? Your assumption that the right won't use these arguments to discredit the policies you like is real dumb. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 01:43 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Y'all don't seriously think that nobody knew this about hillary before a week ago, right? The book was on the best seller list for 18 weeks. People have written articles and blog posts about that very section multiple times before the 2016 campaign. The reason Trump didn't use it as an attack is 1) nobody really cares and 2) republicans support prison labor. Good then this neatly disposes of the objection that we can't criticize pro-prison-labor Dems because it will give Republicans ammo
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Good then this neatly disposes of the objection that we can't criticize pro-prison Dems because it will give Republicans ammo Critisizing Democrats on prison reform doesn't give the republicans ammo. Calling Democrats slaveowners gives republicans ammo. This isn't hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:45
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Critisizing Democrats on prison reform doesn't give the republicans ammo. Calling Democrats slaveowners gives republicans ammo. This isn't hard. Apparently not, because Republicans don't want to call prison labor supporters what they are: slaveowners, for obvious reasons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Critisizing Democrats on prison reform doesn't give the republicans ammo. Calling Democrats slaveowners gives republicans ammo. This isn't hard. I'm more concerned that we have slaveowners in our party than I am with "giving Republicans ammo" which is the dumbest loving idea. They will attack us on mustard choice, they do not need ammo. I want Hillary and her influence gone. You say she's not running anymore, but she's certainly still a major influencer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
so yeah about that permaban
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:51 |
|
|
The permaban was good and necessary. Don't post terribly for years and it won't happen to you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2017 01:50
|
|