|
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 | ||
|
Condiv posted:so the dems idea of transparency and not holding a secret ballot is to only let people in the DC area view it, only with an appointment, only for an hour, and only before the 6th of May. in my opinion, this doesn't meet the requirements of both the dem bylaws against secret ballots as well as Perez' claims of greater transparency. Basically dems think they can just keep bullshitting their membership again till they gain power. That's only for reviewing the actual physical ballots that were used in the election. You don't need an in-person appointment for the simple tally of who voted what, you only need it if you want to see the exact pieces of paper that the voters actually wrote their votes on during the election. This is what happens when you outrage first and read later - you end up looking like a fool because you got mad about something that wasn't even true.
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Was the Bernie campaign really a cult of personality though? The people who espouse that line of thinking also usually point of that he was incredibly little known outside of some hardcore leftists circles before the campaign. A relative minority of the people who voted for Bernie were hardcore supporters. There's a distinct difference between people who decided to vote for Bernie over Hillary and people who built their entire political identity around Bernie.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
Arri posted:What right does the US even have to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? We are literally the only country in the world that has used them, against a civilian populace no less, so I don't really see where we would have the moral authority to tell someone else no. For the same reason we get to be a permanent Security Council member with a veto and Iran doesn't: because we're big and rich and important and have nukes, so naturally we have the God-given right to bully any country that doesn't have sufficient support from the other 21st-century Great Powers. The countries that had nukes decided that they don't want any countries that don't have nukes to get nukes, and that's that. Radish posted:I'm getting the feeling from some Democrats that they think the Russian stuff is what they need to focus on and it will sink Trump. It's frustrating since absolutely no one is going to vote based on that. Independents don't really care and Republicans already consider Russia our greatest ally. It's more of the same "well the rules say that if you collude with a foreign government it will cost you exactly 6% elect-ability points and thus we deserve the next election" when the wonky political rules don't matter anymore if they ever did. The Russia stuff isn't a campaign tactic, it's a "trip up the Trump administration" tactic centered around wearing down the legitimacy of his administration and damaging the ties between Trump and Congress. The Dems definitely need to come together around a solid economic message as the elections draw closer, but we're only a couple months into the Trump presidency right now. The Russia stuff won't swing an election, but it will put a drag on Trump's efforts for the next year and a half, and it's already accomplished more than the Dems were expected to be able to accomplish in Trump's entire first term.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Keep hearing that Russiagate is good because "it slows down" Trump. Seems like it's slowing down the opposition. The Dems have minorities in both houses of Congress, and most of Trump's actions so far (aside from cabinet nominations) have been executive action that doesn't need Congressional approval in the first place. There's nothing they can do to block the immigration orders or defend state pot laws (not that they're much interested in that one anyway). But rest assured that replacing Flynn with McMaster is going to save a whole lot of Middle Eastern civilians.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 20:19
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:if democrats refuse to change then who are leftists supposed to vote for? The reason there are few leftist Democrats is because few leftists are running for office as Democrats and winning. If the only option for your vote is a centrist, then the question you should be asking yourself isn't "why won't this centrist turn into a leftist?", it's "why isn't a leftist running for this seat"?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Manic_Misanthrope posted:Most of the time because they get yelled at for splitting the vote. How is it splitting the vote to run as a Democrat?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2017 00:34
|
|
|
Thank God. I was sick of hearing " mean old Hillary abandoned the people and disappeared from politics, unlike real freedom fighters like Bernie". It'll be nice to hear less of that and more of " how dare Hillary ever involve herself in politics or approach the national spotlight ever again, she should apologize and then hide in a cave until she dies". If I'm going to be hearing people whine about Hillary no matter what she does, they might as well be whining for a good reason.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i too am glad that unprecedented failure hillary maintains her grip on the party and we will have 8 years of trump Yeah, because she had such an iron grip on the party in 2008 and 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:is that supposed to be a joke? And despite all that, she lost the primary in 2008 and barely scraped through in 2016. If that's the best she can do, I'm not too worried.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Are you really going to try and deny that in the 2016 primaries the Democratic party organization was essentially unanimous in their backing of Clinton from the very start? You can make a case for the party establishment being divided in 2008, but in 2016 there's no question that every attempt was made to 'clear the field' for Clinton. And for all that backing, she still had quite a bit of trouble fending off Bernie, with plenty of establishment Dems (like Ellison and Wisniewski) backing him over Clinton. Sure, the Democratic leadership widely supported her...but that doesn't seem to help her much among the voters! If that is the best Clinton's "grip on the party" can do, I'm not too worried about the Iron Fist of Clinton sweeping aside charismatic, powerful campaigners in 2020. Even if she's stupid or insane enough to run in 2020, she'll be a sideshow...assuming, of course, that the left can come up with a solid candidate to run against her instead of collapsing into a pile of infighting and apathy like it usually does.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 05:57
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The left already did come up with a solid candidate to run against her, and you've just handwaved away what they did to beat him, and you're already gearing up to blame the left for it when they do it again in 2020. You know for all the blame you heap on leftists for not steering the Democratic party in the right direction, you're awfully quick to ignore the machinations of the people actually leading the party, who have made it clear they'll keep the hold they've got on it even if it means the Democrats are a minority party forever. Where are these charismatic and powerful campaigners going to come from, Main Paineframe? The Democrats have done a great job making sure that the people with the most influence in the party, and therefore the people most likely to rise to national prominence within it, are the ones who put the interests of the donor class above all else. Maybe it's time to pin the failures of the Democratic party on the people who actually loving lead it, rather than on a left that has tried but so far failed to put it back on track? Expecting leftists to reliably come out and vote for center-right candidates and volunteer for their campaigns is of course incredibly stupid, but what's really infuriating is chastising the left for "infighting" and "apathy" when exactly what any reasonable person would expect to happen, happens. There actually isn't much infighting on the left - you kinda have to have something to fight over, like power, and the left doesn't have a hell of a lot of that, Main Paineframe. The "infighting" you're moaning about is centrists wagging their fingers at anyone to the left of Chuck Schumer who wants a say in the direction of the party. The apathy is about what you'd expect to happen when people who don't feel like they have any good choices to make at the ballot box, don't loving go to the ballot box, don't volunteer for campaigns, and when both major political parties are actively hostile to them, don't bother running for office. Where will these charismatic and powerful campaigners come from? Chicago, apparently. Bernie had a popular message, but he wasn't as good of a campaigner or politician as Obama was, and his campaign made some crucial mistakes. We're sure not gonna get more winners on the left by ignoring Bernie's weaknesses and pretending he was absolutely perfect in every way and was just robbed by the invincible, unbeatable establishment. Sure, the existing Democrats generally favored and endorsed Clinton (though there were plenty of exceptions), but that's kind of the definition of being an outsider candidate, so there's no point whining about it being unfair. Taking over the Democratic Party is what the left should be doing. The establishment centrists think their way is the right way - they won't change until they're forced to by being in the minority.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Wait, so did the Clinton camp over emphasize it (probably) or did it not exist? You should pick one and stick with it. I'm not saying it flipped the election, I'm saying it was there, and it was gross. As usual, Hillary Clinton is a coward who does nothing but make excuses and refuse to face up to her own culpability for her loss, and Bernie Sanders is a flawless angel who was utterly cheated and robbed by the insurmountable power of the weak and pathetic centrists who are literally incapable of winning elections. If the left wants power, it needs to win, not sit around whining about how they lost but it's not fair and the centrists should surrender all power to them anyway. Yes, the big donors and the establishment favored the establishment candidate - but that's the nature of the game, and something the left knew full well was going to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:for the love of god someone make a post that has nothing to do with Sanders vs Clinton. Fundraising and backroom dealing, just like the DNC chair is supposed to do, plus forming an "advisory committee" for the "transition" and appointing thirty-plus people to it. It's not really very visible or prominent, but it was never expected to be - this is exactly the kind of poo poo the DNC chair does. tekz posted:gently caress the Democratic party: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/03/single-payer-dems-colo/ Or, to be more exact, "gently caress political consulting firms that are sometimes hired by Democrats and sometimes hired by major industries". Also, gently caress ballot initiatives for constitutional amendments.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The Democratic Party is institutionally incapable of learning. The way to accomplish political change isn't by hoping all the politicians currently in power magically change their minds, it's by beating them. If Clinton/Blue Dog Southern Governor ends up on the presidential ticket in 2020, all that proves is that even with four years of lead time, the left still isn't capable of beating the moneyed establishment, not even when the establishment candidate is a deeply unpopular awful campaigner. Face it - Hillary Clinton isn't going to wake up tomorrow and realize the glory of socialism and write off her entire political history as misguided - and if she did, we would be foolish to believe her. The same is true for all the other centrists.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Because the media would not treat her as a back bencher. She's Chelsea Clinton, in public office, during the Trump administration. Unless she does a 180 on her family's political legacy, she will be a very public symbol for third way centrism at a time when that is not something the Democrats, or America, can afford. Wait, wouldn't this be a good thing? It's an opportunity for a centrist - a Clinton, no less - to lose to a leftist in a hilarious, humiliating fashion. The party can run Chelsea, and the party can support Chelsea, but ultimately it's up to the voters to decide who wins. And if the left can't even overcome a political nobody running entirely on the strength of their (widely-unpopular) name and connections in a safe blue district, there's not much hope for the revolution.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 21:42
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:They're not loving going to put a Clinton in anything less than a cleared field in a safe seat. Just pray it's not a senate seat. Field-clearing only works against establishment candidates, not outsider challengers. It's backroom dealing to convince potential challengers not to run, not a magic spell that bans anyone else from running - it's no threat to the left. And a safe seat is exactly the best place for a leftist challenger to run. icantfindaname posted:ahahahahaha jesus christ can you even imagine the white hot ball of rage if the Bernie Bros backed a candidate to the left of Chelsea in a contested election? You think that's scary? Just consider the rage supernova that would occur if a Bernie-backed candidate somehow managed to lose to Chelsea Clinton.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Well considering how that went down with the DNC chair election, I'd say a lot of rage would probably be justified. This is an odd change of subject.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:Perez deserves denigration he knows what the gently caress of message he was sending by running against ellison. "I, and many others, think I will do a better job of recapturing the voters we lost in 2016 than Ellison will"? I don't think Perez was the best candidate, but the idea that he was put forward solely as a centrist conspiracy to deny the left is just the result of a simplistic fairytale view of the Democratic Party and a failure to understand that there are a whole lot more than two factions in the party. Some factions lined up behind Bernie while others backed Clinton, but that doesn't mean that the entire party has splintered into a solid "Clinton wing" and "Bernie wing" - there are a number of groups with no particular loyalty, and the Perez pick was made in hopes that he would appeal to more of those neutral groups than Ellison did.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Stairmaster posted:It doesn't matter what the facts are if it was clear the public was viewing him as the clintonist canidate. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Condiv posted:would you say it's a.... nothingburger? Kilroy posted:Ah here we go again: nobody cared about the DNC chair election, Perez and Ellison are practically the same, etc. etc., but it's still really important that Perez gets the position. 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. Now, whether TPP Tom was the right pick for that is a separate question, but that's got nothing to do with who endorsed who. Besides, the best candidate was Buttigieg by a mile - Keith and Tom were both big-money-loving establishment shitheads.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 02:33
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Crossposting from the "Trump Administration" thread: You're missing a few links in the chain, though. You're just pointing at places that had a large percentage swing and saying, "see, it must be the working class whites" - despite the fact that those areas are less than 50% white. Anyhow, I couldn't find results for just Youngstown itself, but I checked vote tallies for Mahoning County in 2012 and 2016, even though (as I pointed out in the other thread) the county is a lot less black and poor than the city itself is. While there was certainly a big swing in percentage, from 63-35 in 2012 to 50-47 in 2016, the real story is in the actual vote numbers: Trump got 9,000 more votes than Romney did, while Hillary got 18,000 fewer votes than Obama did. That means that half the change from 2012 to 2016 wasn't due to Obama voters flipping to Trump, it was due to Obama voters staying home and not voting at all. And while I see you jumped straight to voter suppression as the only possible explanation for non-whites staying home, there's another possibility: that just like white people, they might have felt that Hillary wasn't offering them enough! Deeply embedded in the whole "white working-class" narrative is the idea that programs that help poor people aren't good enough for whites and that poor whites need specially-targeted programs for poor white people only, which is one aspect of the New Deal mindset I'd rather see gone.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 19:43
|
|
|
Majorian posted:As someone else pointed out in the other thread, though, those are just the inner city areas. The whole Youngstown–Warren–Boardman metropolitan area is overwhelmingly white: almost 87%. The Y-W-B metro area is overwhelmingly white, yes...but as I pointed out in response, it's also a lot less poor, with a poverty rate of less than half of Youngstown itself. The Democratic candidate didn't get "their" votes, yes, but whose votes didn't they get? Was it the working-class whites who stayed home? Or was it the equally-numerous and even-poorer working-class blacks? Did it even have anything to do with poverty at all? The poorest county in Ohio (a 91% white coal county with 30% of the population under the poverty line) voted Clinton, while the richest county in Ohio (with a median household income of $88k and only 4.6% of the population in poverty) went for Trump. The counties that flipped from Obama to Trump tended to be on the high end of Ohio incomes, not the low end...which squares quite well with Ohio exit polls that show that higher incomes were far more likely to vote Trump. Certainly, Obama turned out a lot of voters that Hillary didn't, and part of that was a hopeful economic message that Hillary didn't have. But what sunk Hillary was high turnout among suburban middle-class whites and low turnout among poor minorities, not a wave of desperately poor white people mad that she wasn't talking enough about combating poverty. People tend to assume that "working class" means "poor", but that's not necessarily the case among white Rust Belters.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Given the pattern of formerly-blue Rust Belt and rural districts going over to Trump, in lily white and racially diverse areas alike, it seems pretty clear that poor white voters played a significant role. Obama won Iowa by more than 9 points in 2008, and still held it by almost six points in 2012. Yet Clinton lost it by ten points in 2016. Trump won Maine-2 by 12 points; Obama won it by eight in 2012. It seems perfectly clear that poor voters played a significant role, at least. Poor white areas overperformed for Trump, poor non-white areas underperformed for Hillary, and racially diverse areas did both...so why the eagerness to keep pointing at white people specifically rather than acknowledging her general overarching failure to gain traction among poor people of any race? Yes, counties with dying industries and opioid problems swung toward Trump, but that doesn't have anything to do with race! Rust Belt poverty isn't just white poverty, there's poor people of all races there. The "white working-class" narrative just translates to being nicer to the great white suburban expanses of the Rust Belt while ignoring the Flints and Youngstowns where the poverty is most concentrated.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 00:55
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Because it's illustrative of how far the Democrats have drifted from arguing for a platform that includes a strong social safety net, funded by taxing the wealthy. These are communities that have traditionally been Democrat-leaning, and for the last couple decades, they've been really suffering. Bill Clinton's policies played a part in that, and while I think Obama helped alleviate their pain a bit, his administration didn't accomplish enough to give them the relief that they needed. Clinton came off as thoroughly apathetic towards their misery. That's a bad look for the Democrats, when they're trying to portray themselves as the defenders of the underrepresented and the dispossessed. So, again, why say "poor whites" rather than "poor people"? It's an odd and out-of-place addition if your point is just that Dems haven't done enough for the economically disadvantaged, which is certainly true.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Way earlier in the thread, someone asked why Clinton's defeat couldn't just be chalked up to 8 years of incumbency. I think a better question to ask is why a mere 8 years of incumbency would be enough for voters to get tired of any political project. Why is that a reasonable amount of time for people to get tired of a political party's hold on power? Why is this the natural flow of things? Because it's impossible for a party to make everything wonderful for everyone all the time for multiple decades with absolutely no problems, mistakes, or controversies? The only time in the last half-century that a single party controlled the presidency for more than eight years in a row was Reagan-Bush, not exactly a socialist paradise. It was more common in the first half of the century, but political shifts in the sixties and seventies (like the modern military-industrial complex and Civil Rights Act) destroyed the political alignments that had made that possible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 15:03
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Rust belt voters seem to have both a high and low level of policy knowledge depending on the needs of your argument at the time. If they had a high knowledge of policy, they would realize that the ACA was the biggest expansion of the safety net in a generation and that the democratic platform was as progressive as ever. But instead they got conned, like you said. The narrative is incoherent. The ACA sucked, though. It wasn't the change people needed, had several major flaws, and Dems made it worse by at first refusing to campaign on it and then refusing to admit that it could possibly be improved. Although on the other hand, the idea that solid anti-poverty social programs grant electoral success doesn't necessarily hold up, at least in the short term. Although both FDR and LBJ took advantage of massive majorities in Congress to pass sweeping social reforms and programs aimed at helping the poor, they both faced conservative backlashes that ultimately stymied their plans and rolled back many of their gains.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It looks to me like he's saying "expand Medicaid." What am I missing? He's saying "force the ACA Medicaid expansion on the GOP states that rejected it".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 22:18
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Like I said, I think his point is to make demands that Trump can't possibly agree with, which is what the Dems should be doing. It doesn't really sound like an unreasonable request at all. It's literally just "make GOP states accept the ACA Medicaid expansion". Trump wouldn't do it, but it's hardly an unreasonable request.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Condiv posted:there were senators who didn't fall for it. there were people who didn't fall for it. I can buy hillary got swept up in the jingoism, but I cannot believe she honestly believed authorizing the iraq war was the best way to avoid war I'm sure a lot of it was just drifting in the political winds, as Hillary and many of the other centrists tend to do. Bush's Iraq warmongering was clearly stupid even in 2002...but despite that, the Iraq War was somehow really popular at the time. Clinton said a few negative things about the Iraq War in the early years, but she didn't really come out against it hard until its popularity started really dropping in 2005-2006.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Twenty-five Dem senators voted for Bush's border fence in 2006, including both Obama and Biden, but I don't remember it being an issue with anyone until Trump started dogwhistling.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Centrists vote for border walls like this: Exactly, but no one gave a poo poo about border walls till Trump started talking racistly about them, even though it had been part of the GOP platform for years and every significant Dem presidential candidate (except one!) in the last three elections had voted for one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:Obama was loving terrible and sucked in the vast majority of issues. Can't blame her for thinking that, since Obama's first and second terms were good enough for the electorate, and he remains popular even today. If he'd been able to run for a third term he probably would have won.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:"Nobody gave a poo poo" is exactly what we've come to expect from centrists. It's not just centrists that didn't give a poo poo. Where were all the leftist candidates running for office and pushing for change and immigration reform? Where were all the centrists getting ousted and replaced due to backlash from pro-immigration movements? Why is it that it took loving Trump to get people talking about maybe supporting candidates who don't want to build border walls and deport all immigrants? WampaLord posted:Of course he would, he's charismatic as gently caress. Well, yeah, that's a big part of the problem - the Dems looked at Obama and saw him winning despite having lovely policies, so they thought it meant "people are fine with these policies" instead of "Obama is a good enough campaigner to win in spite of his lovely policies".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Lol at "why didn't leftists just take control of the party and run it the way they want." Activists can be politicians. More to the point, they should be. Bernie doesn't have magical political powers, and he isn't some prophesized savior who was fated from birth to be a politician - he's just a normal guy, someone who wanted to do more to change things.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Actually most establishment Republicans want those things too (because their donors would benefit from making immigrant competition with American workers permanent). It's actually a pretty big point of contention between the GOP and it's base Wouldn't the truly leftist position be to ensure that we have a system that ensures all workers get good pay and fair treatment, instead of handwringing about labor markets? The reason immigrant labor undermines worker pay isn't because of labor competition, it's because employers openly abuse immigrant workers, aided by government agencies ignoring those abuses and government policies that discourage immigrants from reporting them. I've seen plenty of "actually real leftists would want closed borders" gotcha garbage from right-wingers lately, and it just goes to show that they don't understand that "make things for everybody except the rich" doesn't require abusing immigrants, and immigration doesn't necessarily mean undermining local workers: both those problems are the product of corrupt capitalism, not inherent economic realities.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 19:56
|
|
.
|
Condiv posted:i'm not particularly happy about the dems rallying around medicare for all now. i mean, i'm happy they're finally starting to embrace it after being forced to, but couldn't they have given in during the election instead so we wouldn't have had president trump? bernie being the politician to watch wrt the dems, and his policy becoming more and more important in the dem party really shows he would've won if he had been given a chance, so why did the dems so foolishly refuse to give him one? or to at least throw his followers a bone? If they were going to do it, they would have done it eight years ago when they had bigger majorities than the GOP does now and had just won a campaign where healthcare reform was one of their big promises.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:strangely, political facts on the ground change over time and the political coalition that was the Democrats in 2008 will not be the same coalition 12 years later. I'm sure that the people who insisted that mild insurance reform was the most perfect system in all the world until about a week ago have totally and authentically fallen on board with single payer.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The last ten years of history don't back this up. The Dems have been too slow moving to the left, but there has nevertheless still been some pretty noticeable movement. It wasn't too long ago that centrist Dems opposed raising the minimum wage at all, supported tax cuts on the rich, and considered means-testing social security. At least when it comes to minimum wage, this isn't true. The last two federal minimum wage increase bills (1996 and 2007) were both Democratic projects pushed through by Congressional Dems against Republican opposition.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah I think you're right and like I said I'm on the fence about it. I'd probably be less on the fence if I hadn't actually been in Tokyo for the aftermath and following the radiation levels there trying to figure out if I'm going to get cancer in 20 years I'm not, at least not because of Fukushima. It's not really any worse than conventional energy sources, except it's built to much higher standards due to irrational fear of ~atoms~, and thanks to that same fear, even minor problems get massive crackdowns on them as opposed to the general response to fossil fuel disasters, "[the water] does have some heavy metals within it, but it's not toxic or anything".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:What world do you live in where looming environmental collapse, war, famine, and disease aren't threatening billions of poor people's lives? It's probably already too late. At this point we're just determining how extensive the damage will be.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 04:01
|
|