|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Majorian posted:She flat-out called herself a hawk on the GWOT, dude. She thinks Obama didn't do enough drone strikes. She is not an anti-interventionist. This is not a "she's not perfect enough" thing. This is a "she's a loving lunatic." If you don't like Gabbard pick someone else young who isn't absolute poo poo and I'll support them instead. Until then I'm With Her. 
Kilroy fucked around with this message at 07:38 on Jul 2, 2017 |
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:Can you name someone under 55 with a halfway-decent shot at winning who's better? It's not that I disagree with you, exactly (I do think "she's a loving lunatic" is a bit of a stretch), but the bench is not exactly brimming with qualified and credible progressive candidates. Hopefully over the next decade and some change we can reverse the damage in that area but in the meantime there's an election coming up and I'd like someone to the left of Chuck Schumer to win it. Warren is too goddamn old and she should have run in 2016 if that was going to be her thing. I'm kind of pissed at her that she didn't, to be honest - it's not clear to me why she sat it out and she let down progressives in doing so - but she did sit it out and now she's too goddamned old. She'd have been too goddamned if she had run in 2016 tbh. Really the whole loving party is filled with geriatric assholes and enough is enough. I agree, but Warren is running in 2020. She just wrote a book essentially detailing her views for the future.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's not being a "softy"; that's being responsible for the outcomes of your horrible past mistakes. Sorry helping those who you've previously hosed over is such an unappealing idea in your mind. Helping a select few that can afford to flee while their countrymen get slaughtered in a proxy war between two superpowers isn't being responsible for the outcomes of your horrible past mistakes. The mistakes are ongoing. You're just trying to minimize your guilt while doing nothing to stop the cause. Majorian posted:No, my argument is that Gabbard is not much of an improvement on Hillary on these issues, and is also, by the way, a vocal Islamophobe. She doesn't belong anywhere near the top of the Democratic ticket. Why does her foreign policy trump her progressive domestic policy? Especially in a race where her opponents support much deadlier foreign policy (except masked in the right language to not make your stomach turn) Majorian posted:Not better, just that he'd have a better chance of winning, which he would. Yeah, the fourth term of Obama under 80 year old Joe Biden is a sure winner when compared to the young ethnic combat veteran that actually supports progressive domestic policies. VitalSigns posted:We had the chance to turn the Supreme Court 5-4 in favor of organized labor, and Call Me Charlie you voted against that because you're scared of Arab children. You, and others like you, said the same thing about the 2012 election - where I voted for Rocky Anderson - and Obama didn't even fight for his Supreme Court pick because he assumed Hillary was going win. Go gently caress yourself. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Jul 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Can you name someone under 55 with a halfway-decent shot at winning who's better? Kamala Harris has a much, much better chance of winning. I strongly dislike Booker and would not want to see him anywhere near the ticket, but he would have a better chance of winning. Klobuchar and Gillibrand would probably have a better chance. quote:Warren is too goddamn old and she should have run in 2016 if that was going to be her thing. I'm kind of pissed at her that she didn't, to be honest - it's not clear to me why she sat it out and she let down progressives in doing so - but she did sit it out and now she's too goddamned old. She'd have been too goddamned if she had run in 2016 tbh. Really the whole loving party is filled with geriatric assholes and enough is enough. I agree that she should have run, and I think she realizes that. I also fully understand why her age is a strike against her. What I'm not getting, though, is why that should be, or necessarily is, disqualifying in and of itself. I really don't think that's going to be the thing to do her candidacy in, if she runs. It would take a lot more than just that to fatally sabotage her candidacy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:I agree, but Warren is running in 2020. She just wrote a book essentially detailing her views for the future.  If she wanted to be President so bad she could have run in 2016 like pretty much every progressive in the country wanted her to. Instead she stepped aside so The Clintons could have another two decades to gently caress up the Democratic party with Obama's help. She's as much responsible for Trump being in the White House as just about any other prominent Democrat - gently caress her.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
speaking of which it's going to be nice when obama comes back from boating with richard branson to endorse the 2nd-most loathsome candidate in the field
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 07:43
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Well she's not getting my vote in the primary unless she's literally the only progressive candidate left by the time WA gets its turn That seems like you're really cutting off your nose to spite your face. Vote for Warren if you think she'll win and enact the policies you like; voting or not voting out of spite is counterproductive. Especially when it's not exactly outlandish that a first-term senator would hesitate about running in a primary against the party's already-de-facto-designated nominee.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
Razputeen posted:speaking of which it's going to be nice when obama comes back from boating with richard branson to endorse the 2nd-most loathsome candidate in the field Yeah, I wonder which neoliberal technocrat he's going to endorse in 2020. I ponder how much private entities are paying him on the DL (in the millions) to not publicly endorse single-payer or free college tuition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Kamala Harris has a much, much better chance of winning. I strongly dislike Booker and would not want to see him anywhere near the ticket, but he would have a better chance of winning. Klobuchar and Gillibrand would probably have a better chance.  For that matter Harris will be older than 55 in 2020 but I guess that's okay. Harris is great but I don't think she's going to run in 2020. I'd support her over Gabbard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 07:52
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Gillibrand is full of poo poo. I won't vote for her if she's on the ticket in November 2020. But that's not the question. The question is, would she have a better or worse chance of winning the presidency in 2020 than Gabbard? There's really no sane way one can say she has a worse chance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That seems like you're really cutting off your nose to spite your face. Vote for Warren if you think she'll win and enact the policies you like; voting or not voting out of spite is counterproductive. Especially when it's not exactly outlandish that a first-term senator would hesitate about running in a primary against the party's already-de-facto-designated nominee. I wouldn't call her the de-facto-designated nominee just yet. If Zuckerberg seriously runs (he's hanging out with Truckers and carpenters across Middle America right now), the media is going to promote him like a motherfucker. Remember, Americans love their celebrities, and literally everyone has a loving facebook page. Everyone in this country has an attachment to him. I honestly think the Dems are going to ignore progressive/socialist issues in favor of celebrity circus bullshit with Zuckerberg and Mark Cuban. Do you really think the media wants to hear Warren talk about single-payer instead of listening to Mark Cuban personally insult Trump every 5 seconds in a macho way? We are entering some kooky times.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:I wouldn't call her the de-facto-designated nominee just yet. I meant Clinton in 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But that's not the question. The question is, would she have a better or worse chance of winning the presidency in 2020 than Gabbard? There's really no sane way one can say she has a worse chance. I, uh, get the impression that you don't know much about Gillibrand's actual positions on things... (because she doesn't have any lol)
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Go gently caress yourself. Cool you can tell that to public sector unions when Republicans refile another nationwide right-to-get-hosed case against them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That seems like you're really cutting off your nose to spite your face. Vote for Warren if you think she'll win and enact the policies you like; voting or not voting out of spite is counterproductive. Especially when it's not exactly outlandish that a first-term senator would hesitate about running in a primary against the party's already-de-facto-designated nominee.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Cool you can tell that to public sector unions when Republicans refile another nationwide right-to-get-hosed case against them. If only we had Obama to walk the line with them to protect their rights. Oh wait... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-macaray/obama-labor-unions-workers-_b_922576.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKpso3vhZtw Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Jul 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:03
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But that's not the question. The question is, would she have a better or worse chance of winning the presidency in 2020 than Gabbard? There's really no sane way one can say she has a worse chance.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:I, uh, get the impression that you don't know much about Gillibrand's actual positions on things... I haven't voiced any support for Gillibrand, other than that I think she'd have a better chance of winning the presidency than Gabbard. Kilroy posted:Oh you are under the impression that I give a flying gently caress how a neoliberal Democratic candidate will fare in 2020, should the Dems be stupid enough to nominate one. I do not. You asked me which Democrats under the age of 55 had a chance of winning in 2020. I gave you some answers. Gillibrand sucks, but I think she has a better chance of winning. That's all I'm saying, no need to get annoyed. Majorian fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Jul 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You asked me which Democrats under the age of 55 had a chance of winning in 2020. I gave you some. I realize you do not like some of them very much. I also do not like some of them. But that is not what you asked me. You asked me which candidates under the age of 55 had a chance of winning in 2020. And I answered your question. So chill, good lord.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I asked you for some that were better. I guess I should have clarified - I did not mean "more likely to win" I meant "better" as in: not a poo poo-tier neolib again. Ah, okay, there's the misunderstanding then. I definitely thought you meant "had a better chance of winning." No, I agree, I probably won't be voting for Booker or Clinton in any election here on out. It's not like they need another California vote anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I asked you for some that were better. I guess I should have clarified - I did not mean "more likely to win" I meant "better" as in: not a poo poo-tier neolib again. If we get to July 2020 and the general election is shaping up to be pretty much like the 2016 one was then as far as I'm concerned we've already lost, and it won't matter to me whether it's Booker or Gillibrand or Hillary loving Clinton on the Democratic ticket at that point, because I won't be voting for them regardless. I'm not going to let the Democratic party hold Donald Trump over my head to convince me to vote for another poo poo-tier candidate who won't do anything about climate change or income disparity or disenfranchisement or literally anything else that matters. I'd rather Donald Trump get his eight years than validate that as an effective strategy. I'm sorry it might not be what you meant but you did say "more likely to win" it's in the quotes at the top of the page.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:If only we had Obama to walk the line with them to protect their rights. Oh wait... You don't give a poo poo about that, you voted for this lol https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/806660011904614408 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/806678853305384960
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:25
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I'm sorry it might not be what you meant but you did say "more likely to win" it's in the quotes at the top of the page.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You don't give a poo poo about that, you voted for this lol http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2016/jul/27/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-he-and-bernie-sanders-are-very-s/ And you can lol all you want at me making a calculated (and admittedly angry) decision but I've explained the logic behind it a million times now and it was significantly more thought out than your 'well gee let me vote for the third way centrist & organized labor are saved  ' that democrats have been doing for the past 20+ years.
Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Jul 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:34
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2016/jul/27/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-he-and-bernie-sanders-are-very-s/ No one thought Clinton would save organized labor, just that she'd do less damage to it than Trump. Which was probably accurate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:http://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2016/jul/27/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-he-and-bernie-sanders-are-very-s/ Like it's one thing to look at the two candidates and just go "gently caress this, I'm out" but you actually voted for Donald. Trump. What the gently caress is wrong with you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
I'm lolling at your transparent concern trolling. Obama only half-heartedly supported a pro-union bill (a legitimate criticism of him, I agree it was shameful), but I have a hard time believing you really care about that when you don't mind a Republican president using the bully pulpit to literally attack unions and union leaders, accusing workers of not working hard enough and wanting too good of pay and benefits in the same words that every other greedy evil bloated capitalist rolls out every time working folks want fair pay and decent treatment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:41
|
|
|
If you oppose legalizing LSD, you are probably still a bad dem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
I guess if you'd never heard of Donald Trump or the Republican Party before 2016 and knew absolutely nothing about either of them and your sole source of information in the run up to the election was poo poo you overheard your dumbass coworkers say and then maybe 15 minutes of cable news a week or the occasional RWM blog - I suppose in that case Call Me Charlie's reasoning for voting Trump sort of makes sense. It also means he does the human race a disservice by trying (and failing, miserably) to participate in democracy. You let us down, Call Me Charlie. You're too stupid to vote. Try not to do it again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm lolling at your transparent concern trolling. If this was concern trolling, I could cause alot more chaos by taking the centrist/establishment role. Just look at how nutty JC/B5 were able to get before the hammer dropped on them. Or how shrike82 switched from trolling Hillary supporters to trolling Bernie supporters in this very thread. Kilroy posted:You're a loving idiot for voting for Donald Trump and you should be ashamed of yourself. History will not be kind to people like you, assuming history is a thing humans do for that much longer (it isn't, so you can breathe a little easier). Trump won my state by 150k and I'll never be ashamed of myself, no matter how many people try to dogpile me for it. I made the best decisions I could with the choices given to me. I did the third party thing in 2012 and I couldn't kick the can down the road by doing it again. Hopefully the democrats won't be a waste in 2020. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Jul 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
Disengage from politics permanently and spend the rest of your days trying to enjoy the world you have helped to destroy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:53
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Trump won my state by 150k and I'll never be ashamed of myself, no matter how many people try to dogpile me for it. I made the best decisions I could with the choices given to me. No you didn't. You could have voted 3rd party and given them more voter share. You could have written in the name of someone who you felt really deserved it. You could have written in "gently caress all neoliberals." These would have been much better uses of your vote.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Trump won my state by 150k and I'll never be ashamed of myself, no matter how many people try to dogpile me for it. I made the best decisions I could with the choices given to me. I did the third party thing in 2012 and I couldn't kick the can down the road by doing it again. You are an immeasurably lovely person, with no concept of taking responsibility for anything. It's not "dogpiling" to point out basic facts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 08:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:No you didn't. You could have voted 3rd party and given them more voter share. You could have written in the name of someone who you felt really deserved it. You could have written in "gently caress all neoliberals." These would have been much better uses of your vote. Writing in a name would have had the same end result as me voting for Trump or holding my nose for Hillary or sitting at home masturbating instead of walking to the polling place. He won my state by 150k voters. It wasn't close. Josef bugman posted:You are an immeasurably lovely person, with no concept of taking responsibility for anything. It's not "dogpiling" to point out basic facts. Dogpiling is where the usual suspects bring up the fact I voted for Trump, months after the fact, to discredit anything I post as if I give two fucks about what random people on the internet think of me or that I'll become ashamed enough to stop posting. Spoiler: I don't and I'm not. If people want to call me a lovely person or a bigot or a racist or a nazi (all things I've been called on D&D), whatever. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Jul 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:If this was concern trolling, I could cause alot more chaos by taking the centrist/establishment role. No I don't mean you're trying to derail the thread. I mean that your refusal to support Obama ever again because he wasn't the aggressive advocate for labor that he should have been strikes me as insincere, because a Republican can openly shamelessly attack unions and workers and you're all "oh well hmm well nobody's a perfect friend of labor", it's absurd.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 09:09
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:Dogpiling is where the usual suspects bring up the fact I voted for Trump, months after the fact, to discredit anything I post as if I give two fucks about what random people on the internet think of me or that I'll become ashamed enough to stop posting. Spoiler: I don't and I'm not. If people want to call me a lovely person or a bigot or a racist or a nazi (all things I've been called on D&D), whatever. Because it does discredit your points. You looked at not voting or voting third party and went "no, I want to do damage". The damage that affects the poor and vulnerable far more than the wealthy and comfortable. And you should stop posting because, to put it bluntly, you are bad at arguing and poor at reasoning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 09:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No I don't mean you're trying to derail the thread. I mean that your refusal to support Obama ever again because he wasn't the aggressive advocate for labor that he should have been strikes me as insincere, because a Republican can openly shamelessly attack unions and workers and you're all "oh well hmm well nobody's a perfect friend of labor", it's absurd. Call Me Charlie, in June, last time this derail happened posted:Unions are powerless when corporations can sidestep labor entirely. Whether that's using the threat of moving overseas to put their boot on labor's neck or slowly eroding the use of union workers like what happened with my family's union. I'm still waiting for an answer to how unfettered free trade is actually good for unions. - edit Josef bugman posted:Because it does discredit your points. You looked at not voting or voting third party and went "no, I want to do damage". The damage that affects the poor and vulnerable far more than the wealthy and comfortable. Call Me Charlie, in May posted:I despise centrists and thought Hillary Clinton would do far more damage to the country (just like Bill Clinton did in the mid 90s and Obama did in 2008-2016 as the democrats turned a blind eye to them obliterating everything we're suppose to stand for) than Trump could. I figured that Trump would either be a typical republican and lose reelection (where hopefully we'd be able to get a more progressive candidate in for 2020) or he'd do part of what he said he'd do and potentially change traditional republican dogma (in regards to free trade and infrastructure) Josef bugman posted:And you should stop posting because, to put it bluntly, you are bad at arguing and poor at reasoning. If you disagree, try attacking my points so we could debate instead of attacking me personally. Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Jul 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 09:14
|
|
)
|
Trade agreements without adequate labor protections aren't good for unions, but you know what's worse for unions? Union busting. Again you just complain that Obama didn't "walk the line", but a Republican can bash unions, bash labor, and tell workers to shut up and work more for less pay and all you have to say is "oh well hmm hmm nobody's perfect you know, he's still got my vote".
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
I just remembered how several democrats were on board with SOPA some 6 years back and how the mere mention of that bill brings back chilling memories down my spine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 11:31 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Trade agreements without adequate labor protections aren't good for unions, but you know what's worse for unions? Union busting. Are you still missing the part where Trump was closer to Bernie on trade than traditional republicans or either Clintons? Or the fact that, in the post you quoted, I literally said "Unions are powerless when corporations can sidestep labor entirely. Whether that's using the threat of moving overseas to put their boot on labor's neck or slowly eroding the use of union workers like what happened with my family's union." So, yeah, I can complain about Obama being a garbage centrist while also voting against Ms. NAFTA - my dream is 'a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders' 'TPP is the gold standard' 'America never stopped being great' Obama's Third Term - Clinton (Also how strange that another person ducks the 'How ow unfettered free trade is actually good for unions?' question) (And before anybody tries it because this place is a neverending circle. Yes, I thought about Trump lying on trade and already covered why I still voted for him. Either he follows through, which would be good, or he lies and a pro-labor democrat can smash him on it come reelection time. Both options were better than being stuck with President Clinton 2) Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Jul 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2017 09:45
|
|