|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
mcmagic posted:Good for you. But you're spouting the same arguments that the people who didn't vote or voted for Trump did. Because they're right, Hillary is corrupt. Trump's worse, but he's just the next step in corruption, not an entirely different beast altogether. Sorry I'm not pretending that dems taking massive amounts of money in exchange for favors isn't corrupt and that republicans are the only corrupt ones in congress.
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 17:18
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:In terms of the corruption scale she's a 2.3 and he's a 7 billion. Scale and perspective matter. I'd expect a non-fascist to be less corrupt than a fascist, yes. But pretending hillary isn't very corrupt is part of the reason fascism is on the rise. Tolerating corruption only lets it fester and grow worse. Corruption weakens people's faith in their government and gives demagogues like trump room to grow. Condiv fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Wouldn't false equivalency lead to neither candidate getting a vote? Anything that's not a vote for hillary is automatically a vote for trump. All third parties would normally vote dem, if only voters weren't so dumb. That includes votes for the constitution party and Libertarian party btw.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 17:33
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:It's your fault she didn't campaign or reach out to rust belt voters. gently caress, when's my treason trial?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 17:37
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Bernie both outraised and outspent Clinton during portions of the primary, of course. which is good evidence that we don't need corporate donors to reach an effective level of campaign cash.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:sure, and it's also not a reason to be discouraged about the future dems continuing to take corporate dollars is though, cause they cannot address their constituents' needs and be sucking at that tap at the same time
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
found this while reading up on her senate win: from 2001 https://web.archive.org/web/20070322114708/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/pardons/overview.html quote:The outrage following the Rich pardon prompted Clinton to defend himself in an op-ed article that appeared in the New York Times on February 18, 2001. Clinton wrote that while he waived the criminal charges against Rich and Green, the two men are still liable for any civil charge the government might bring against them. hillary is definitely not corrupt. not at all she only has to remind us every couple of years that there was no quid pro quo Condiv fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesArkin/status/843896952400109568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw yep, dems are done too incompetent to govern, much less get elected. rest in donald trump's piss dem party
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I am worried about the next election but what was going on in this thread re: false equivalency between Clinton and Trump was dumb and had to be responded to. that was in your head cause i never said clinton was as corrupt as trump, just that she's corrupt.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:You seemed very worried about a who gives a poo poo like Chelsea Clinton getting a good job. i am very worried that dem leadership is beholden to large corporations and not at all interested in helping the poor. gifts to hillary clinton from NBC are unethical and corrupt, and hillary knows better. we need clearheaded dems who aren't too beholden to a corporate agenda to be able to fight effectively or we'll have 8 years of trump or worse.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
would jefferson clay freak out if he ever had to go to vermont? sounds like it's a state full of berniecrats. they even vote for bernie over real democrats a state full of backstabbers
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:i think the article was written before the primary election but bernie won as the democrat candidate, declined it, and thus no one else could run as a democrat in the general bernie-san.. shinjirarenai.... (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
clinton was hilariously unpopular throughout the race. she started off hated and ended up loathed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
you know who would've really won though..... . bernie sanders
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Actually, she was at 47/47 the day she announced, was at 48/46 (-2) a month later when Bernie announced, and then she drops to around 56/41 (-14) in the next few months and stays there through the convention and the election. So she started off hated by republicans and she ended up loathed by republicans and Bernouts. and just about everyone. that's why she couldn't beat a racist orange goblin. or was she just too lazy to beat him? in any case she sucks and was the second most disliked pres candidate in history and she was so incompetent she lost to the most disliked.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 22:44
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Candidate who loses the entire rust belt says what 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The only people who saw the DNC chair election as "Sanders candidate vs Clinton candidate" were the leftist Bernie diehards, who made up a relatively small portion of the people who voted for Bernie. would you say it's a.... nothingburger?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:No? That's not even close to what I said. I saw it as different wings of the establishment having a disagreement over who would best appeal to Rust Belt factory workers, racial minorities, and other traditionally Democratic groups who were noted for their lower-than-expected turnout or higher-than-expected Trump support in 2016. Ellison's leftist battle for control of the DNC was a figment of overly optimistic imaginations; it was never about the left, it was about groups who actually mattered in the 2016 general. they're so fundamentally the same that obama personally took time off from his private island dream vacation to whip delegtes for perez. it was such a nothingburger position that ellison got smeared as anti-semtic repeatedly over it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Ellison also said all the broke brained people who have more beef with Hillary than Trump were incomprehensible so let's not pretend you actually give a poo poo about his views on how the party should function. i got beef with lots of people i just don't post in the trump thread much cause it's drat hard to follow
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
thank god we picked the candidate of trump-lover dershowitz to lead us to victory against trump
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
dems allowed loving trumpish muslim-hatred to be spread by alan dershowitz amongst the delegates. way to go guys, doing a bang up job of resisting trump already.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 15:48
|
|
|
you know what else would've helped hillary? if she and the DNC weren't so intent to cheat. we lost one DNC chair cause she was colluding with hillary, and then brazile says she wasn't gonna allow that anymore, knowing that she had just played favorites with hillary a few days before. and then she gets caught on it a few days before the election and she lies more. its amazing how stupid the dems are. was leaking debate questions to hillary worth jeapordizing her candidacy? oh, we haven't even gotten to the point where dems ask themselves that, because they still refuse to admit the primaries were a rigged farce
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Nothing the DNC did mattered in the outcome of the primary. They aren't nearly that competent. yeah, until theres actually been a look into "what the dem party did" i'm gonna doubt that. all we've seen is what's leaked, and we hear new things every so often, like the DNC punishing people who endorsed bernie. the dems have still not been straightforward with how the DNC was loving with the primary. hell, we just got a confession from brazile about the debate questions
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:What happened in the party with everyone lining up behind her in 2014 is not a DNC issue. They don't have the power to do that. guy tried to endorse bernie, so this wouldn't be in 2014
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:That story in NJ is loving infuriating but that is how politics in NJ works. 90% of our democrats are utterly horrible. It has nothing to do with the DNC. that should be looked into too, but don't you think the poo poo that has come out of the DNC so far warrants an investigation into meddling in the primary and attempts to prevent this kind of poo poo from happening again to restore faith in the party? the party circling the wagons and saying nothingburger while at the same time claiming these revelations cost them the election is a losing strategy
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Which revelations cost them the election? brazile's debate questions leaked a few days before the election. dems certainly thought it was damaging enough they lied their asses off about it till now the original revelations wrt dws also hurt them alot and caused a bad schism in the party that may have contributed to hillary's loss (it almost certainly didn't help). those revelations were damaging enough that DWS had to step down way ahead of schedule. Condiv fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:None of that had anything to do with the outcome of the either the primary or general. so you don't think dem meddling in the primary should be investigated because you don't think dem meddling hurt them at all in the general. ok, that's kinda naive since we already know hillary's favorabilty sank alongside said scandals. however, why do you think we should not investigate the extent to which the DNC abrogated its duty to remain neutral during the primaries? we already have multiple examples of the DNC acting in favor of certain candidates, and we need to know to what extent the DNC acted in favor of a candidate and try to find a way to prevent something like that happening to restore faith in the dem party. i don't know if you know this, but it's not just hillary's favorability that's in the toilet, the dems' are too. the DNC loving around with the primaries really hurt the dems with the public, and we need to deal with that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I agree the whole thing is lovely but: basicallly, ignore the problem instead of fix it (cause we think it doesn't matter). too bad dems don't think any of their problems matter, and hence they put out retarded poo poo like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju3K9bqPTeM
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:That's DSCC not DNC Oh, criticism withdrawn then. I was worried the dems were pursuing the same failed strategy that airs substanceless ads that only give trump free attention instead of achieving anything. Obviously not since it's the DSCC behind this rather than the DNC.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 13:52
|
|
|
Condiv posted:basicallly, ignore the problem instead of fix it (cause we think it doesn't matter). too bad dems don't think any of their problems matter, and hence they put out retarded poo poo like this what is this video's message? it's message is to ask people to think about donald's healthcare plan it provides no information about donald's healthcare plan it shows images of what we I assume are people selling their cars and their wedding ring to pay for their kid's treatment (but it leaves this up to the viewer to infer!?) problem #1: encouraging free thought is good, but in a political ad, you want to sell a thought. you want to sell your party's ideology, not ask people to generate one for themselves. are you idiots? problem #2: the bad actions that we're supposed to associate with donald trump's healthcare plan is something people already have to deal with under obamacare and could be associated with the status quo. oops! problem #3: show don't tell is good for movies, not so much an advertisement where you want people to come to a specific conclusion. as i mentioned before, the scenes of people selling their poo poo? some people may not make the connection you're wanting them to make. some may have an entirely different interpretation of your ad! that's good for movies, we want people to be able to interpret stories as they see fit. it's not good when you're trying to convince people to your side, in that case you want people to see things your way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 14:06
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Condiv is gonna love this: i mean, it feels like the wind up to a senate run to me, but who knows, maybe she really helped a lot of inner city schools with the healthy schools program or something. i really don't know anything about what she did in there other than she's vice-chair of the board of directors
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:You were saying "the DNC should be investigated" like they committed some sort of crime. Being a lovely private organization that sucks is not a crime. I'm not forgiving them for anything, I'm telling you there's nothing to investigate because they didn't break any laws. they violated their own charter which demands they remain neutral during a primary there are a lot of people in the dem base pissed about that. it's not an uncommon sentiment that bernie was cheated. we need an investigation to find to what extent that is true and how to prevent it in the future so people don't lose all faith in our party (like they are currently with its new lovely leadership) i mean, the dem party is currently bleeding popularity: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/democratic-party-favorable-rating as you can see, 50% of the nation doesn't view us favorably a little less than 40% like us. the trends are for the people who view us favoribly to continue to shrink, and those who hate us to grow. that's bad. that's real loving bad especially when you stack us up against trump: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating loving donald trump is more popular than the dem party donald loving racist imp grab em by the pussy trump is more popular than the democratic party. and people HATE trump. Condiv fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:One, not gonna help the party's numbers. Nobody outside of a few die-hard bernie supporters cares in any meaningful way about it, and of those that do care about it those that want an investigation are wholly outweighed by the ones who accept the DNC's resistance to an outsider campaign as the price of running an outsider campaign. The best case scenario is that it's a total waste of everyone involved's time. The worst case scenario is that the fishing expedition turns up something right wing media can run with for a few more years to distract from Trump's ongoing shitshow. no, letting people we know lied and hosed with an election remain in leadership positions within the dems will certainly help our numbers. making sure people know we're blatantly corrupt and unwilling to do anything about it to will certainly attract people in droves to the democrats. Condiv fucked around with this message at 17:25 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
who do we need to look to for the future? people that have been MIA since the trumpening
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 17:50
|
|
|
SouthShoreSamurai posted:They hosed up in the original article: that explains it though i'm not sure doing what the government should be doing for us in a sane system deserves an impact award
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I mean She's Not Wrong if Sanders comes out and says this in his big "why I'm a socialist" speech because when asked how the party was gonna move left, she said "we are capitalists". that moving left to someone like bernie sanders anymore wouldn't be possible because he's not capitalist, he's socialist
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:her answer was an explicit endorsement of this i watched the video. she said capitalism had flaws and offered no solution to those flaws. this is when she was asked to move left, to admittedly capitalist senator bernie sanders' pov. and she said that we can't, because "we're capitalist"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I mean, gently caress, Sanders keeps pointing to the Nordic model, which sure as poo poo is capitalism. then why does nancy pelosi reject him for not being capitalist? that's why people are pissed about that answer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Because calling for Full Communism Now is unlikely to attract more than a single-digit percentage of voters. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 06:53 |
|
|
Frijolero posted:And we're back to "Hillary was a cool adult, Trump is a baby dummy." because they've warped their thinking till the cart is in front of the horse. voters have to vote regularly as a politician to see benefit. dems are owed your vote by default and will cater to you once you vote enough
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 04:23
|
|