|
How about that Kamala Harris person, then?
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
A shbark in every pot, a karl in every garage
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Next Democratic president is going to be Trump. He's going to switch parties and win the Democratic Primary to get their team-loyalists while pulling all his committed Republican supporters across the divide, and he's gonna get 4 more years based on an overwhelming 70% of the popular vote.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
I also think there's a lot of different stuff people mean when they talk about identity in politics and identity politics. I think the more real problem is identity politics as practiced by establishment dems which seems to be more about "representation" that only benefits the already priveleged, and making those who identify a certain way feel obligated to support politicians because of it even though those politicians promise nothing in return but get pissed if you "betray them", and justifying ignoring the diversity within identity groups and treating them as a monolith which is pretty lovely. I dont think the way it is practiced right now by the dems in general is very good for actual social justice, and hopefully whoever is up next adopts a better way to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:blaming political correctness or identity politics is wrong. the issue is not that the democrats focused on them, its that they didnt focus on economics at all. They also didnt use them well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Oh yeah, fighting against torture of gay people and the forced public humiliation of trans individuals is just for "representation". Totally nothing important or meaningful being done there. Lol if you think social progress has been on the back of efforts made by the establishment Democrats that passed DOMA and only "evolved" on the issue so they could claim part of the credit instead of the incredible LGBT groups that had already done all the hard work of pushing a platorm of public acceptance while the Democrats were busy triangulating away from them. Unless there was some particular Democratic core plank of destroying the horror of conversion camps once and for all and prosecuting anyone ever involved in running them, I dont know what the gently caress you are actually talking about anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
There was nothing natural about it happening, and the politics involved were vicious, and the fact that you would take what is honestly a stunning achievement away from the peole who actually accomplished it, to defend those who did nothing at best and often actively opposed it, it is disgusting.
GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 23:35 on Nov 24, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
I look forward to Fulchrum defending the third way Establishment Democrats on all the incredible progress they made ending the drug war a decade from now, lol.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:lol if you think the drug war will ever end I dont really see that stopping him from taking credit for it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:giving in to the GOP's demands for your entire presidency is a good idea because, Because they are demanding things you actually want but cant say out loud without alienating parts of your base?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:So if your argument is that no worthwhile change cones from politicians, but from the public opinion and the groups trying to change it As an LGBT person from a deep blue state who had to deal with the fact that the Democratic party did not just fail to support our rights but actively fought against them until the courts told them to get hosed... no, not at all. There were plenty of worthwhile changes pushed by many decent politicians, and the main obstacle to getting them passed was the lovely old Democrats who represented the old establishment wing and honestly did not like gay people working together with third way democrats who didnt give a poo poo about gay people and were worried supporting them might cost them votes which was bad politics when you can count on them to vote Dem anyway. Accomplishments were generally made despite the party leadership, not because of it. GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 00:40 on Nov 25, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Eugenics was a progressive invention. This is pretty weak.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Yeah, I guess you're right, it's not like he claimed something insanely stupid like that socialists and progressives are responsible for every good thing the Democrats have ever done. If you'd said something remotely relevant to countering that claim, that whole "slimmest justification" thing, you'd have been a lot better off. Instead it just sort of looks like you agree with it, so you had to try to move the conversation somewhere else because thinking it was true made you unhappy. Which probably isn't what you wanted to communicate but hey, maybe it's accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:loving hell, warn a man next time. You threw those goalposts so quickly it nearly took my head off. Get a load of this guy, forgetting where he was going and running to the wrong end of the field and accusing the other guy of moving the goalposts.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 10:06
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I still say Duckworth. Yet to see any reason not to like her. I see at least one.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You mean like exactly what I did, followed by laughing at the tortured logic he used to try and justify his positions. You know, saying you did things doesnt retroactively make them done. Also if you support Duckworth why dont you lead with saying ehy she is good and why we should want her to be president?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Fiction posted:He did actually come up with some stuff to debunk my argument made mostly to infuriate him. He claimed he came up with it first before delving into irrelevancies though, maybe I remember wrong but I though he only fell back on that after a huge pile of bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
Well, you've sold me on him. Anyone else have a good reason he wouldnt be any good?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
Mental-Rectangle posted:Nah cities like Chicago and Providence are the bottom of the barrel. The average congressman receives a level of special interest money an order of magnitude higher than the examples you're citing.\ It's funny that you think the amount of money is in any way tied to the amount of corruption.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Clinton was against single payer, like, ideologically, and pretending that she actually supported it is about as stupid as saying she supported legal weed or opposed the war in Iraq
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I guess 1993 was just a clever ruse to throw people off her trail and cover up her real allegiances. She fought against single payer in 1993 In favor of something very like obamacare. Are you trying to rewrite history GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 07:49 on Nov 29, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 07:44
|
|
|
Haha you bullshitter you are walking it back but in the stupidest possible way, do you even listen to yourself? I accept you admission that you were lying though
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
This is just sad at this point. You are the one who claimed she advocated for single payer in 1993, something that is not true. All I did was call you on your bullshit and you respond with... whatever this garbage is. I am not interested in your stupid non sequiter fight, I just want you to stop making things up
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Did she advocate for single payer in 1993 or not?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
"Yes, except the opposite." You are a joke.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Well the government could provide health care directly, thats one that work well We could also adopt different cultural norms, like killing the ill at the first sign of weakness
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
I actually like fulchrums plan of passing legislation to make insurance unsustainable and use that as an excuse to backdoor single payer. I am not sure how single payer is supposed to be an alternative to single payer, or why he thinks single payer can succeed where single payer failed, especially since its literally the most common suggestion for single player implementation (expanded medicare) but whatever. i will take it
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Why does the left hate Franken? I mean i dont agree with him on everything but he seems good overall?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
There is no way Musk would take a break from making meaningful change in the world to be a politician.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
ThIt feels like the single biggest thing the government could do to help fix the problems with healthcare is the one thing they're never going to be willing to do because no one has any desire to engage in log-term thinking - pay for doctors to go to medical school, pay for nurses to get trained, encourage people to enter the field, do something to deal with the frankly insane disincentives for people to enter the field. Is anything like that happening, at all?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:uhhh clam bake? que??? A clam bake is the superior cultural event to the fish fry. It is based around quahogs and clams and lobsters and other things with shells instead of boring fish. Other than I suspect they have a lot of similarities.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:There's an indescribable beauty in the simplicity of a good cut of fish, battered and fried well. Simple doesn't have to be bad. I am pretty sure what you described is actually more complex than normal clam bake preparations, which is literally "steam clams, distribute clams in huge buckets, eat your way through the buckets".
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Steaming them is a bit more complex than the normal (and even more simple) method of digging them out of the dirt and immediately slurping them out of the shell raw
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
zegermans posted:So, what was the issue with Franken? The discussion kind of died on that. The major downsides I see are "not Bernie Sanders, the only acceptable politician" and "kind of a smug prick sometimes" I think he has a few major problems (supported the war in Iraq and most other military interventions since, is a pretty extreme copyright maximalist) but neither of those are, imo, central issues we need to rely on to see a Democratic rise. I actually think he's pretty good. I don't get the feeling he has any desire to run a presidential campaign, but I would support him if he did and no other better candidate (one that's younger, more charismatic, less hawkish, less committed to locking away cultural touchstones for corporate profit) presented themselves. Way better than Hillary, that's for sure.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 06:57 |
|
|
get that OUT of my face posted:seeing that large margin of victory in the special election in Delaware, as well as the closer-than-expected GOP victory in one of the Connecticut special Senate elections, makes me feel that Democrats will use them as an excuse to throw out any mild candidate into races and expect them to win. it will work to some extent, but not enough as actual left candidates being trotted out on the regular. and then they'll try and translate that strategy into the presidential race and who the gently caress knows what will happen. trump is unpopular but so is the lovely democratic message Please make a thread about the Periello race. I am gonna be doing one for Ossof soon
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2017 00:02
|
|