|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Mister Fister posted:Again, if Obama pulled and Iceland and sent bankers to jail/instituted regulations with real teeth, hell even broke up the banks, do you think wall st would be cutting him checks? This question only works if you're being honest with yourself. if he had done this hillary would be president right now
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This seems to be about HRC. but then your link doesn't work so I can't be sure. https://morningconsult.com/2016/06/01/hillary-clinton-emails-poll-results/ Yeah I only have polls about the last time this happened, and not about something that just got announced last night. But maybe we can infer from the reaction the last time this happened how those same people will feel about the same thing the next time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Just pragmatically speaking Nevvy Z: could you describe the counterbalancing benefits we receive from accepting Wall Street paydays that look so untrustworthy to half our party and two-thirds of independents that they refuse to take us at our word and demand transcripts of our speeches? Wait is corruption why Trump won now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Wait is corruption why Trump won now? Is your goal to have a dem government, or a good government?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Is your goal to have a dem government, or a good government? they've been upfront about this since the primary. they care about dem government above all else. we can worry about good later
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:36
|
|
|
It's like Nevvy Z is stuck in 2008/2009 and still believes in all the hopey changey bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Wait is corruption why Trump won now? Let's assume a fantastically unpopular action by a candidate may have played a role in a narrow loss. What benefit is there to collecting payments from Wall Street that outweighs the risk of turning off voters by doing it. I just want to know what the benefit is, there must be one since you're arguing so hard about it. It's not pragmatic to take risks with no benefits.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:35
|
|
|
Betsy DeVos paid for her position to make kids* stupid *poor
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:36
|
|
L
|
Condiv posted:they've been upfront about this since the primary. they care about dem government above all else. we can worry about good later Actually they don't even care about that because they will gladly throw voters the middle finger if they can take Wall Street cash, or even more bizarrely for the liberals ITT, feel smug vicariously about their politicians getting paydays and telling the American people to go vote Republican if they don't like it. If they cared about Dem government, they would be concerned about the appearance of a conflict of interest,
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Dizz posted:Betsy DeVos paid for her position to make kids* stupid this is bad because a republican did it when dems do it though... 
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Let's assume a fantastically unpopular action by a candidate may have played a role in a narrow loss. Anyone who changes their voting pattern based on what a former president did when he left office is an idiot and I don't think former presidents should have to hold themselves accountable to every idiot in their party regardless of how those idiots may feel about it's impact on past or future elections. Anyone who sees this and say "yes, evidence that he was corrupt the entire time" already thought that, or should have if they were paying any attention.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Wait is corruption why Trump won now? So did you miss the parts of the campaign where 1. Trump put on a big show about funding his own campaign to emphasize/strongly imply his opponents corruption and 2. Hillary received massive criticism for her closed door speeches?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
In the Trump thread there are people genuinely arguing Obama, after eight years of nothing, will use the speech to unravel the whole insurance industry and make them see the error of their ways, West Wing style. Also that insurance executives are waiting for starry eyed Obama to show them the meaning of love so their hearts can grow three sizes that day. Instead of using the president like a loving prop, like loving Ronald McDonald, to promote their lovely event where they confer how to rip off people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
I have strong principled views but if Wall Street gave me 300k I would drop them in an instant -Quote I have heard around on this supposedly progressive forum and around the internet when this dropped
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Big business friendly centrist democrats: lmao Their luck is that Trump is such a shitshow and that the representative system of the US is so bad that otherwise they would probably have gone the way of the French socialists by now
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Realtalk though, the idea that democrats can still take their base for granted has easily of skyrocketed to the dumbest take ITT. It's like bad dems are literally literally incapable of learning. Doubly so since the past several decades, and especially the 2010 & 2016 elections, clearly demonstrated that the dems can't take their base for granted. (And even if the dems could take their base for granted - which they can't - voter disenfranchisement/suppression creates a situation where the base by itself can't win elections outside of uniformly blue zip codes.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Obama should just take money from Blackwater (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) and Putin because why the gently caress not. There's no such thing as bad optics because there's a (D) next to their name!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Condiv posted:this is bad because a republican did it Yes, because in my post I wholeheartedly supported dedmocrats buying their positions, but keep on trying to deflect, guy
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:So did you miss the parts of the campaign where 1. Trump put on a big show about funding his own campaign to emphasize/strongly imply his opponents corruption and 2. Hillary received massive criticism for her closed door speeches? yeah let's get back to how to appeal to voters dumb enough to think Trump wouldn't be corrupt
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
Dizz posted:Yes, because in my post I wholeheartedly supported dedmocrats buying their positions, but keep on trying to deflect, guy Deflect what?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Obama should just take money from Blackwater (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) and Putin because why the gently caress not. Agreed. And you should totally make a big deal about it when he runs for president.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Anyone who changes their voting pattern based on what a former president did when he left office is an idiot and I don't think former presidents should have to hold themselves accountable to every idiot in their party regardless of how those idiots may feel about it's impact on past or future elections. Anyone who sees this and say "yes, evidence that he was corrupt the entire time" already thought that, or should have if they were paying any attention. so you're willing to shed voters when we're already down a ton everywhere in america? just so hillary and obama can take checks from wallstreet they don't need and which provide no discernible benefit to anybody but hillary and obama?  maybe calling you guys centrists is wrong. the suicide caucus is sounding more appropriate recently
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Anyone who changes their voting pattern based on what a former president did when he left office is an idiot and I don't think former presidents should have to hold themselves accountable to every idiot in their party regardless of how those idiots may feel about it's impact on past or future elections. Anyone who sees this and say "yes, evidence that he was corrupt the entire time" already thought that, or should have if they were paying any attention. You still didn't answer the question that's been posed a few times. Mainly, what's the actual benefit
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Agreed. And you should totally make a big deal about it when he runs for president. We're not allowed to judge him on this because
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:You still didn't answer the question that's been posed a few times. Mainly, what's the actual benefit What's the actual benefit of receiving half a million dollars for a few hours work?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:You still didn't answer the question that's been posed a few times. Mainly, what's the actual benefit There's a monetary benefit to the individual, which is the only benefit that matters. The idea of trying to benefit a group of people is just naive. Nevvy Z posted:What's the actual benefit of receiving half a million dollars for a few hours work? Holy poo poo, he actually said it" PISS
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:We're not allowed to judge him on this because Because you'd be an idiot to believe this is anything that wall st handing him money out of the goodness of their hearts for nothing but a speech I guess
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
Dizz posted:Yes, because in my post I wholeheartedly supported dedmocrats buying their positions, but keep on trying to deflect, guy i wasn't attacking your post or you. i think it sucks that betsy devos bought her position. i think it sucks that democrats are generally ok with that as long as it's not a republican doing it and i want both sides to cut all this corrupt bs out (starting with trump being prosecuted when he leaves office)
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:There's a monetary benefit to the individual, which is the only benefit that matters. The idea of trying to benefit a group of people is just naive. Dems: gently caress You, Got Mine
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Wow, just look at all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in this thread over a single stupid loving speech. I don't think I've ever seen a group of people spend so much effort to justify their inaction and apathy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:There's a monetary benefit to the individual, which is the only benefit that matters. The idea of trying to benefit a group of people is just naive. This is a lot of snark with no substance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Wow, just look at all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in this thread over a single stupid loving speech. I don't think I've ever seen a group of people spend so much effort to justify their inaction and apathy. Agitation = apathy
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:a lot of snark with no substance. Hey look, it's all of your posts in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
it is retroactive he was the president and the individual Obama can do whatever the gently caress he wants, but then a democratic voter that was inspired by his Hope and Change™ rhetoric sees that the guy got a check by a sector that acts sometimes as the polar opposite of distributive economic benefit and hoards and sequester national economic gains for itself, they might not be so inspired to vote again for that party
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:51
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Wow, just look at all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in this thread over a single stupid loving speech. I don't think I've ever seen a group of people spend so much effort to justify their inaction and apathy. yeah, what's wrong with obama taking bribes? it's no big deal!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:53
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Wow, just look at all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in this thread over a single stupid loving speech. I don't think I've ever seen a group of people spend so much effort to justify their inaction and apathy. If there was one word I'd use to describe wanting to hold a political party to higher standards, it's "apathy".
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Does this immunity from conflicts of interest work for all politicians or just Democrats. Let's try it: Trump only took Putin's money and help in order to screw him later. Isn't it good that Trump has Putin's money so Putin has less to spend evilly?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Does this immunity from conflicts of interest work for all politicians or just Democrats. fygm dem in 2020: you can't prove putin paid for trump to lift sanctions! he offered the money and trump took it, there's nothing wrong with that! we can't replace a wartime president!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
sirtommygunn posted:If there was one word I'd use to describe wanting to hold a political party to higher standards, it's "apathy". I'd bet money it's "collective apathy" because it's our fault Clinton didn't win
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 08:05 |
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Anyone who changes their voting pattern based on what a former president did when he left office is an idiot and I don't think former presidents should have to hold themselves accountable to every idiot in their party regardless of how those idiots may feel about it's impact on past or future elections. Anyone who sees this and say "yes, evidence that he was corrupt the entire time" already thought that, or should have if they were paying any attention. The last time this happened 47% of Democrats were suspicious enough that they refused to trust the candidate's word about her speeches. I guess half the party and two-thirds of independents are "every idiot", and the idea of being accountable to the majority of the electorate is so abhorrent that we'd rather those people just vote Republican if they don't like unaccountability thank you very much.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2017 14:58
|
|