|
Schnorkles posted:bernie is by all accounts in charge right now and the party seems to be falling in line. I don't see how this is remotely true. He's done basically nothing.
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:That's not a good reason to funnel weapons and money to the Jihadists so they can make the situation even worse. If somebody offers you a potential out, then you take it no matter how unlikely it seems. After everything else that's happened this year, we can't afford to keep making bad assumptions on assumed wisdom. i think the flawed assumption here is that the opposition would accept an outcome with an assad that remains in power after the brutal human rights abuses he committed. there's no real alternative to regime change because an assad regime's civil war will never end.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Hm, so suddenly the responsibility for the civil war is shifted off of Assadists and onto an opposition which refuses to negotiate. I wonder what would happen if all the rebels saying "Christians and Druze to Lebanon, and Allawis to the grave" achieved regime change? Assigning responsibility is pointless. The bottom line is an Assad regime is unworkable. I would find that preferable to the status quo if it weren't totally impossible for him to govern.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
resar posted:tbf America has a long and storied history of loving with other countries elections Hoisted by our own retard
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
iospace posted:So the Wisconsin recount is a go. trump will win wisconsin sorry for spoilers
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2016 07:57
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:Why didn't I realize back when the democrats had the legislative and executive branches locked down and NOTHING loving HAPPENED that the democratic party was hosed? Why didn't I try and get involved then to un-gently caress it? How was I so blind and thought that everything was under control? yeah nothing happened in 2009/2010, except reforming wall street, healthcare reform, lilly ledbetter, $100 billion in new infrastructure spending, expanding access to food assistance for the poor, repealing don't ask don't tell, and a new nuclear disarmament treaty. but obviously there are 60 people with a D next to their name in the senate for 6 months so why shouldn't it just be full socialism now
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Besides the LL act, none of those things help out the average working class American. if wall street reform wasn't meaningful, i would suspect wall street would not be desperately trying to repeal the reforms. i get that most of the reforms are largely invisible because federal agents didn't rush into goldman sachs and shoot everyone that did not submit to the cfpb, but wall street has had ongoing restructuring caused by the reforms which will lead to a smaller and more stable financial sector. it's not full socialism now, but there were significant reforms involved in it. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 06:42 on Nov 27, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 06:39
|
|
|
Darkman Fanpage posted:any regulation, no matter how small, is vigrously opposed by wall street because the only good kind of capitalism is the unfettered kind. perhaps, but the cfpb has been effective and the laws that severely punish large banks for being too big have lead to the the really big ones actively working to become smaller. and various other activities have been limited or regulated by the law to make it more difficult for them to threaten the financial stability of the system as a whole. but yes, if your fundamental stance is that you are against finance as it exists, then the frank-dodd regulations won't go far enough for you. but i think it takes more than 60 democrats to smash capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
mugrim posted:It will absolutely "Do poo poo". alright calm down. she's not going to run again, and if she did she wouldn't win the primary. the idea of her running in 2016 was never a joke and i have no idea who at dnc thought she should run in 2012 given that quite a few of them were obama staffers. i think it was abundantly clear during the primary that hillary was not a talented politician. she looked a lot better before she ran than while she was running. but i think in the end her loss was due to strategic errors that exposed serious flaws in how the democratic party's professionals conduct campaigns. had their resources been better allocated and their messaging more effective, they probably would have won Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 21:38 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
pelosi is the most progressive speaker the dems have ever had, i really don't know why there's a big share of progressives who always want to replace her. but she's probably the best possible option for democrats because she's the rare combination of being both to the left of her own party and still an extremely effective leader of her caucus. i don't think anyone is voting/not voting for their congressperson because nancy pelosi is around, so i'd rather have someone effective, progressive, and unpopular than a minority leader that is popular but not so much the other two.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Golden Bee posted:So what would be the criteria for firing leadership, if "losing the last two cycles" isn't enough? You're going after the wrong person. Pelosi isn't the problem.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:Prob nothing, but the DNC needs to be swept clean. honestly the issue at hand is not with the democratic congressional leadership. reid and pelosi have done a good job and i think people will miss reid a lot while chuck schumer is in charge. saying "oh we lost better wipe out everyone" is dumb, and in all likelihood you will end up with someone even worse. the issue democrats face is not with their elected leadership largely, it is with the invisible consultant class that writes, tests, and polls the messaging and strategy on behalf of democratic candidates and campaign committees. there have been serious flaws since the emergence of message testing in both parties. i think they've been able to cover up the issues in 2010 and 2014 by pointing to obama's elections and saying "we just need to solve the midterm turnout problem!" now 2016 has left no doubt that we need to reform the message as well, and that turnout is not even the largest issue.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
nixon got some good legislation through, but he did so prior to the emergence of the modern right-wing. he was still racist as hell, which it turns out as a big deal at that time.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:That's why I said DNC not congress. But yeah I can see how I could be misunderstood. These PR hacks and marketing washouts need to be purged. I'm even thinking we should start pushing Brazlie out so we can have the election sooner and push the momentum of "you fuckers lost to trump" be pushed right into that. to an extent i think you're right, to an extent i think that's too far. one issue is there just isn't really some up-and-coming class of people to replace them with - you have a handful of people who are really good and know what they're talking about, and then you have legions of grifters that just tell you what you want to hear and absolutely rinse local candidates for 30-40% of their fundraising. and i'm not really in favor of killing off effective consultants who aren't always right in favor of the grifter class, who i think will inevitably gain if we start this purge process. i think the top consultants in dem party really want to win and will learn/become more effective from 2016, whereas there's a whole lot of people who are going to learn the wrong lessons. the dnc should work to end the massive conflicts-of-interest in consulting work. for example, a media buyer is going to tell their candidate to buy more tv ads, and then take a percentage of the overall buy. we have to end the tad devine type poo poo where he pushes weaver to fire the entire bernie field staff and then spend that money on ads that he directly profits from. focus groups and message testing are important, but they should be de-emphasized in favor of pushing candidates to build cohesive messages that talk more about vision than a hodgepodge of lines that test well in polling. more states should invest in year-round organizing efforts emphasizing changing the partisan composition of the electorate. overall i think the democratic party has stagnated since 2008 and they should stop ceding ground to progressive issue advocacy organizations and start taking the lead on getting people to see the party in a more positive light.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:you might be salty at CNN but saying they're worse than FOX news is very remember all those posters who thought the onion was writing pro-hillary propaganda
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:this is primary salt so don't do this not really. i support ellison for chair, but there's a trend on this very forum to claim a covert corporate/establishment agenda every loving time a news source says something mean about a friend of bernie, who by the way is likely to win on the strength of his support from democratic leaders.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
i still think obama is actually a secret atheist and nothing can convince me otherwise
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Lol Obama loves church and religion. Have you ever seen this dude pray or sing amazing grace? idk didn't he not go to church for basically his entire presidency? makes you think.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Obama went to church every week dude idk what the gently caress you're talking about old but: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/us/as-the-obamas-celebrate-christmas-rituals-of-faith-stay-on-the-sidelines.html quote:But the one thing the president and his family did not do — something they have rarely done since he entered the White House — was attend Christmas church services.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Fair enough. Dude went to church though. He's religious, not an atheist. i don't really think obama is an atheist, it was a joke
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
U-DO Burger posted:I still don't get why they don't run candidates for every seat. It is so loving stupid they tried. it's not like they deliberately don't fill them, it's just that no one wanted to run
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Serf posted:I think the point here is "look at who is actually trying to get important poo poo done" sure but it's time to move on. Bernie is a sitting Senator and Hillary is gone forever. I have no need or desire for her to try and assert herself as the leader of the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
OhFunny posted:Critism coming from the President of the International Association of Fire Fighters for only having Ellison's name on the ballot. rigged
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
jerry seinfel posted:I sat in on a state Dem party organizing call today. Someone brought up Pantsuit Nation and asked if the state party would build them an organizing site without really explaining why. I think they just wanted a nicer message board to post on than Facebook while being catered to. what everyone really needs to know is that state & local parties are almost always terrible
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The party leadership is super obviously pushing Ellison. There are a few dissenters here and there, but it's such an easy way of bringing the Sanders wing back in line that the old guard just can't resist. i think this is largely true although i think it's a bit uncharitable. the democratic party knows it needs to bring sanders supporters back, and offering up the post of dnc - a post that a lot of people in sandersland are very concerned about - is, i think, a form of outreach by democratic leadership. some people are interpreting it as a "sanders takeover of the democratic party," which is false - we've always been a big tent party, and there's room for the left, the center-left, and the center. being a big-tent party doesn't mean you always have to pick from the center-left and the center, especially if the candidate from the left is more effective. but yes, i also think the dnc head isn't really a powerful position at all. it's fairly weak. yes, ellison isn't going to go after centrist dems. that's not his job at dnc. it's to get more democrats elected. i don't agree that it's going to be like michael steele. steele was bad at everything as rnc chair, and i expect ellison to be competent and push forward new programs to improve the dnc. he has good ideas and i think he'll be make a strong chair. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 18:46 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
anime was right posted:there shouldn't be a "firewall" of demographically similar states in huge chunks. the initial stage of the primary is actually a great way of doing it. 4 very different states. do chunks of 4-6 states from different parts of the country in waves. this seems like a policy specifically aimed at black voters? why?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Mr. Jive posted:More states need to have an open primary I think. In RI, I was a registered independent for years but thanks to the open primary I strolled in and voted Dem without any bullshit. My vote registered me for the Dem party. why does this forum have so many rhode islanders, it's weird
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:What do you mean? how else to interpret it? march 1 and march 15 contained basically all the southern states. the only other major demographic primary i can think of was the new england bloc in april/may, and i would argue strongly against breaking those up since it would disadvantage candidates with less money due to overlapping media markets.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Zoran posted:I don't understand how Iowa manages to hold on to its starting position in the primary cycle, seeing how literally every other state and territorial delegation at the DNC has a vested interest in destroying that advantage. 1. because both iowa and nh are swing states and no one wants to piss them off 2. because obama won iowa and didn't want to change it 3. because progressives wanted to keep it there as the caucus tends to lean to the left 4. institutional inertia
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Because if there's one thing we've learned about general elections, it's that voters really care a whole lot about procedural issues? iowans really, really care about going first. it's all they have.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Zoran posted:I understand this argument, but I really think you guys are overstating the impact this would have. If the change was made three years out from a presidential election, like in 2017, there would probably be a few weeks of controversy before everyone shrugs and forgets about it. it doesn't really work that way. the states get to pick their primary dates. the dnc gets to decide how many delegates they elect. they can strip a state of delegates/penalize them, but can't make them hold a primary on a different date. if iowa decides they're going first, they will be set for a showdown at the DNC/RNC challenging for their delegates to get counted. it's like florida in 2008, which was a big debacle. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 19:23 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Also caucuses are the best is that ironic
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
DrProsek posted:Looking back on Clinton's campaign as a campaign that's ultimately saying all the wrong things and loving up, it really makes it clear the mantra of "poor white idiots are tricked into voting GOP against their own interests" is totally bullshit, the GOP is totally in many of their best interests. Yes, Trump's not going to bring back coal unless America or Europe suddenly overhaul their energy needs for no other reason other than just so they can burn more coal. But even if it's not really going to happen, just having a candidate who's saying "I'm bringing coal, steel, factory work, etc back to America" is already way more in their interest than a candidate going "lol if you're somehow still a coal miner in 2016, you're gonna get so hosed, praise NAFTA and TPP". And sure, the $15 minimum wage is nice, being less hostile to unions than the other guy is cool, but neither of those helps if a) you don't already have a job and b) your union isn't already dead or useless like almost every other union in America. to be fair, hillary was actually talking about her plans to help coal miners losing their jobs as the nation's energy profile changes. but that one sentence became the entire media story.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:trump's silver lining is a likely more peaceful foreign policy trump is a guy with no self-control surrounded by insane, hard-right foreign policy hawks on his cabinet. i wouldn't be so optimistic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:any coal workers is right to be skeptical considering what came of the nafta "retraining" to help those displaced by jobs moving to mexico i agree. but there is only one party with a plan to actually help coal workers displaced by the changing energy economy. but somehow hillary ends up being the bad guy here because she was taken out of context.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:hillary already has a history of following in the footsteps of kissinger so I'll take my chances w/ the guy preaching isolationism trump isn't preaching isolationism, that's deluded. i have some level of confidence we will go to war with iran in the next 4 years
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:relatively speaking trump was the dove candidate compared to the hillary warhawk trump's actual campaign platform includes carpet bombing cities full of civilians and killing the families of terrorists. he wants to end the iran deal and go hard against china. so no, he was actually more hawkish than hillary. the fact that he takes a dovish stance toward russia, a nation that is itself significantly more hawkish than the US, is not an indication that he's gone soft.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:No one actually knows what Trump us and is not going to do, because we dont know who is going to be the last one to talk to him before he makes the decision All of his cabinet picks and his vp are Iran war hawks so I wouldn't feel too confident on that
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
comedyblissoption posted:Trump doesn't support escalation in Syria with a no fly zone for one. He's also not stupid enough to keep insisting the libyan war is still good. Trump doesn't support challenging Russia in Syrian but he will certainly deepen our involvement
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 13:44 |
|
|
Well What Now posted:why is it such a loving shock that people don't want to lose their current job, lovely as it is, in exchange for some nebulous promise of a future job of some sort that may or may not be better? Duh, of course. But the issue is coal jobs are going down anyway. One party actually cares and the other would replace them with automatons if they could.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2016 20:56
|
|