|
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 | ||
|
icantfindaname posted:The idea that not all politicians or parties have as much contempt for their own voters as elite liberals do for theirs, or that maybe such contempt is a bad strategy in purely electoral terms, is utterly alien to some people I mean, Republicans definitely do have contempt for every Republican voter making under $250,000 a year, that's obvious. But they're* smart enough to tell them what they want to hear and promise to do whatever they want instead of just calling their voters stupid babies. "Gay marriage is impossible you babies, how about a separate institution that's totally equal just you know special and set apart and segregated just for you." "LGB and T workplace protections? Nah." "The same UHC system that a dozen countries operate successfully, that's pie-in-the-sky nonsense, we'll give you the Republican plan because Republicans know better than you." *Well, with certain exceptions (  )
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
Fulchrum posted:And we're right back to "How dare they think they can tell us the truth? gently caress them forever!" But "the truth" about gay people is "gay people are the same as everyone else and deserve the same treatment and the same rights and privileges as anyone else". So liberal Democrats didn't tell the truth. They told lies about how marriage is a special institution for straight people only instead of standing up for the truth.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 04:33
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You know, you can keep pretending Republicans don't exist, but that doesn't mean were going to forget about them. "This is the best we can give you right now" would have been honest, but what say Hillary actually said was closer to "this is exactly what we always intended to give you and we don't think you deserve any better" Hillary Clinton, 2000 posted:Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman. But I also believe that people in committed gay marriages, as they believe them to be, should be given rights under the law that recognize and respect their relationship. Hillary Clinton, 2004 posted:I believe marriage is not just a bond, but a sacred bond between a man & a women. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work & challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man & a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the foundational institutions of history & humanity & civilization, and that its primary role during those millennia has been raising & socializing children.  See a federal anti-gay marriage amendment is unnecessary because I would never ever even dream of supporting equal rights for everyone lol.Hillary Clinton, 2008 posted:Q: What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage? Barack Obama, 2008 posted:I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that's not what America's about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don't contract them. They never said "oh we believe in equal rights but the votes aren't there, we'll get you what we can now and keep pushing", that was never the justification offered, ever. They lied about gay people to try to get Republicans to support them. But Republicans didn't support them, Republicans hated them anyway and treated them exactly the same as they would have if liberals had just told the truth about gay people in the first place. Only ironically Republicans were able to use those lies to deflect from their own anti-gay agenda, "we're not hateful, see Hillary Clinton said marriage is for a man and a woman", and depress Democratic turnout by pushing "both sides both sides!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 05:14
|
|
|
No it's a pretty good analogy. Hillary Clinton knew exactly how bad segregation and "separate but equal" were, yet borrowed the segregationists' arguments when it came to gay people. The Democrats' opposition to gay rights was never about telling hard truths to dumb leftist babies who believe in pie-in-the-sky nonsense that will never happen like equal rights, as Fulchrum claims. Liberal Democrats agreed with and argued for segregation either because they believed lies about gay people or they cynically believed that lying about gay people would trick Republicans into voting for them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 05:43
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Show me quote containing the words "Gay marriage should and will never happen". Do it. Don't repost Dems saying their personal view is that marriage is between a man and a woman, because that's just thought policing absent any active attempt to stop it. The Dems have been defined as the party who think you don't legislate according to your personal feelings on an issue but what the facts state, and you're attempting to claim that dem personal beliefs completely overrode that tendency and that they fought against gay marriage. "I am not in favor of gay marriage" -Barack Obama, 2008 And  at this "oh it's just my personal belief that you shouldn't have equal rights, judging me for that is Orwellian thought police" Republican bullshit. The fuckin Milo defense.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:Both parties voted for the Iraq War. Both parties are hawkish on Iran. Both parties support Saudi Arabia. These aren't opinions... The Iraq War is funny because there was this same moderate contempt for noisy dumb anti-war protester snowflake babies at the time, fast-forward 13 years later and pro-war Democrats flipped around and told ridiculous lies that they voted for war because they thought Bush wouldn't really do it (why wouldn't you vote against it then, if there's nothing to lose, who knows!). Rather than just admitting the left was loving correct all along they were like "no see you're too stupid to realize we were just playing 11th-dimensional chess to stop the war all along, but oops we were incompetent!" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:One party engages them in a nuclear treaty. One tore it up and is going to illegally reinstate the sanctions. Gee, wonder if there might be a difference. The parties are obviously not the exact same, and voting straight-ticket D is unquestionably the rational choice. Hillary could have taken a poo poo on my living room floor, rubbed her crotch on my face and whispered "You know what I'll do as president, VitalSigns, whatever the gently caress I want because what are you gonna do about it, vote Republican?" and I would have pulled the lever for her even if the Texas GOP made me wrestle a bear to get a voter ID. But I know plenty of people who didn't because Hillary was against gay marriage, or Hillary voted for the war, and they didn't believe any of her promises and didn't trust someone who would lie to get into power. Was that irrational, yes, but irrational people's votes count just as much as yours and mine, and now a crazy cheeto man won a technical victory by a gnat's asshair in a couple of key states. If people were 100% perfectly-rational politics-bots you wouldn't even need to campaign. You'd just publish each party's platform on their website, with links to medical studies and economics papers and scientific data and whatever else you need to cite, and beep boop 100% of the population would turn out to vote for the platform that most aligns with their preferences, and if someone didn't you would just need to call them up and say "logically you're being an irrational baby with a poopy diaper, now implement game theory and vote in your best interest" and they'd be like "okay Hillary you're right." But that ain't the way the world works. And it's too bad too, because then your strategy of calling everyone stupid until they vote for pro-business liberalism over cryptofascist theocracy would be a smashing success. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:55 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 06:49
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You mean that I'd Iran breaks the treaty in a way that requires direct and immediate action, they'd take direct and immediate action? Butchers!!! Oh gently caress here we go. Are you going to carry the rifle and dodge mortars in the Zagros mountains? Should we invade North Korea too? Should we have kept rolling east in 1945? Should we have conquered India and Pakistan? And aren't you Australian or something anyway so there's zero chance that you'll suffer at all in this clusterfuck war that's getting you so hard? If we can bring Iran to the negotiating table with sanctions hey great, but if you think an invasion is a good idea then nah people like you should never have any influence or respect in any institution let alone the Democratic party.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 07:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 07:56
|
|
|
Did I fall into a timewarp. Is this 2003. "Whoa u dont think we should maim and kill thousands of US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians in an open-ended occupation until we finally slink home after wasting lives and treasure for a decade and watch another region collapse into civil war. I bet u would have been all nice 2 Hitler too u hippie appeaser." Someone post groverlist.txt I'm on my phone.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 09:44
|
|
|
"Let's do Iraq but 100 times worse, and this time we'll start with a military exhausted from 15 years of warfare and a domestic population with sky-high war weariness on day 1." Gee how did abuela lose with a whole cohort of centrists with this caliber of strategic planning behind her?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 09:54
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Well, how old were you in 2003? Cause if it was under 4 or so, that would explain why you're too dumb to understand what a hypothetical situation is. I served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, thanks, what were you doing in 2004. I don't feel like sending another cohort of kids to die for some more fantastical scenarios about the swarthy furriner's suicide wish to nuke the world. Once was enough.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 09:59
|
|
|
Hey does the Shah have any kids. Maybe BP can finally get those oil contracts honored after the war 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 10:02
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You're the one bringing up loving fantastical scenarios! The platform is talking about poo poo like Grand Ayatollah Khomenei getting on TV and saying "we're getting nukes now. Nyah nyah nyah." Not a contrived suspicion or a lie, real tangible proof accepted by the International community. That is the situation they are describing would warrant action, and you seem utterly loving convinced that Iran would do that just for fun and we should ignore it if they do, or that Hillary would invade anyway because of some bullshit reason you pulled outta your rear end (she's totally a hawk, she hates Muslims, she hates America, it's her time of the month, pick one cause they all equally apply). That would not warrant an invasion, no. Iran does not want to commit suicide and a nuclear first strike guarantees that they would die immediately after. No reasonably conceivable consequence of a successful Iranian nuclear program would come anywhere close to the horror that an invasion of Iran would be. I already said I supported the sanctions that led to the Iran deal, like two pages ago, is that not enough for you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 10:29
|
|
|
You're missing the final piece of the puzzle:JeffersonClay posted:What do you mean by reasonable labor standards? Are you talking about 1st world occupational health and safety or wages? If it's just the former, there's still going to be a huge (if shrinking) wage differential. If it's both, then there's no functional difference between that and a tariff, except tariffs can at least theoretically get spent by the government on needed things. In any case, both of these policies would hurt the majority of the US poor because they will be forced to pay higher prices for goods and they won't see wage increases because they don't work in manufacturing. Should we burden the poor here with higher prices so that The poor elsewhere have better working conditions? I don't think there's an easy answer there. Actually we can't help out the sweatshop workers abroad at all because America's jobless poor need those low low slave-labor prices! It's a beautifully perfect circle of rent-seeking, oligarchy, and misery! Breathtaking in its crystalline radial symmetry. Free trade will help everyone -> okay not everyone, but you're a racist if you care about laid-off Americans because we're helping Bangladeshis get jobs here -> okay they're slaves but you're a classist if you care about Bangladeshis because we're helping the American poor get low prices here! Turns out we can't help anyone at all! How convenient. I— *gets hoovered up into the top 0.1%'s Scrooge McDuck vaults along with half the world's wealth* VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 13:04 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
*draws two intersecting lines* Therefore you're not unemployed! QED. *Draws a line, labels it 'G'* And that's why it's good your wife died in that factory collapse! *Goes on to prove that parachutes can't work because air resistance isn't mentioned in Physics 101*
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Bernie couldn't come close to beating Hillary, and Hillary lost to Trump. By what logic could you see that working well at all? This Ronald Reagan guy couldn't even beat Ford in the primary, then Ford lost to Carter. Therefore Ronald Reagan is unelectable QED, you're crazy if you want to run him in 1980.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I think a false accusation of being a socialist is probably not as effective as one that's true. But we've never tried running a democrat who'll defend socialism--not just the welfare state, but changing the ownership of the means of production--so anything's possible. Under that definition Bernie isn't a socialist though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:The other guy lost to you and spent millions of dollars to do it without having a single loving negative ad ran against him. I don't know, maybe Bernie isn't the savior of the party? Hey want to make a wager on the 1980 election. Sad loser Reagan lost to the guy who lost to Carter in '76, want to bet against him? It's a sure thing for you so why not. I mean I know why not. It's because "the winner of a primary is categorically the best general election candidate" is an obviously erroneous argument, both logically and empirically.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Nothing the DNC did mattered in the outcome of the primary. They aren't nearly that competent. True, but that makes the cheating even dumber. People who tarnished their party's own image for, let's see uh no reason, in the run-up to the most important election maybe ever shouldn't even be running a student council election campaign let alone a major political party. Dr. Fishopolis posted:I agree the whole thing is lovely but: True, the DNC in fact has no duty to the voters at all. It's a private organization and it would be within its rights to change the rules at the convention, throw out the primary results, and bind all the delegates to vote for Katy Perry, if they wanted. That doesn't mean, however, that it would be a good idea or that voters would reward them with the presidency anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
Just get some rich celebrities like Oprah and Katy Perry to make a commercial for the Democratic candidate. Americans love rich celebrities, landslide ahoy!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
Shouting Russia for four years isn't going to fix all the other problems with Hillary's campaign. But, it might push a few more suburban Republicans away from Trump so we can run Hillary again in 2020, win the popular vote by 3.5 million this time, and squeak out a narrow victory in the rust belt state that delivers us the EC and yet another Republican house and senate. And then finally we can get that Grand Bargain to cut social security and balance the budget.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 08:10
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:He would have tried, which counts. Hillary told America she absolutely wouldn't try, over and over during the primary, and that trying was dumb to begin with. Its no surprise no one took her seriously when she suddenly decided to change her platform. Actually I believe you'll find that Russia hacked Hillary's operating system and made her say all that stuff during the debates. Not a Step posted:Like, Obama would have cut social security in the name of compromise if the Republicans hadn't stepped on their own dick. No that was Russia who did that. And before you bring up any other problems with the Democratic party — Russia. Russia Russia Russia.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:like free healthcare and college are good, but will they solve So your problem with Bernie is that he wasn't leftist enough for you? Or what.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
override367 posted:I don't think Sanders was hard enough on Hillary personally Remember her answer to Trump's criticisms of NAFTA at the debates was "well that's your opinion" lol. Maybe Bernie should have hammered her harder on that point so she would have a counterpoint ready instead of nuh-uh I'm not listening lalalalalala.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
OK so it's confirmed that the Hillary wing's strategy for 2020 is "I support Trump's wars, but remember he's a bad person so vote for me to do the wars"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
I can just see the 2020 debates now. Secretary Clinton: Last week on the campaign trail you discussed our ongoing ground war in Syria, quote "The mistakes in Syria are not the responsibility of our men and women in uniform but of their Commander-in-Chief. From the decision to rush to war without waiting for diplomacy to run its course, to the failure to send enough troops and provide proper equipment for them. To the denial of the existence of a rising insurgency and the failure to adjust the military strategy. To the continued support for a government unwilling to make the necessary political compromises. The command decisions were rooted in politics and ideology, heedless of sound strategy and common sense." Yes that's right Weren't you on TV for every step of the war, expressing your support of every single action by this president. Did you not personally lobby on his behalf to pass the bipartisan Authorization of Military Force against Everyone? How do you reconcile this? Actually I was secretly against it all the whole time, but I thought lobbying for the war was the best way to keep us out of the war. See, Trump deceived me by looking competent on the big shiny TV, so I thought he had a quick easy solution, but now that he doesn't I can tell you that what I'm saying now is what I really meant all along. So what is your plan if you become president. I dunno, whatever Trump's doing is fine I guess I'll do that. And make no mistake, everything he did is horrifying and Trump must not be allowed to continue as commander in chief.
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Donald Trump has been criticizing NAFTA since 1999, I think it's fair to say Trump would have used that attack even if Bernie hadn't committed crimethink during the primary.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Dems will use the poor execution of the war to criticize Trump's judgment, and Trump will point out that they were on the news egging him on and they voted for all of it so their judgment must be even worse than his, and America will agree with him.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
Bombing foreigners is as natural as breathing to Hillary " " Clinton.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
If you don't want a war, you must love Once we destroy enough of
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2017 12:46
|
|
|
Radish posted:Trump will stand in front of a hanger full of flag covered caskets and blame the Democrats for their deaths by agreeing with him to commit troops to Syria and how only he truly respects their sacrifice. Then the New York Times will call him the most presidential man in the country. The bolded is the only explanation left for Democrats' war boners. The wars are terrible for our country, they're terrible for the Middle East and the people living there who are left worse off every time, and they're terrible for the Democrats politically because their support just boosts approval for the Republican war mongers and then when it all goes to poo poo the Republicans just brazenly lie and say "oh I was against it the whole time, ignore the video proof and trust me" and then blame it all on the Democrats because they voted for the war. Then the Republicans run on ending all these Democrat foreign interventions and win. But the arousing allure of big bombs and dead Arabs and mutilated soldiers and flag-draped caskets is just too strong for Democrats to resist... 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that doesn't matter either cause perez backed a 50-state strategy publicly, but when the rubber met the road he abandoned support for that Purposely losing 30 states is technically a strategy. If you thought a 50-state strategy was a strategy to win in 50 states, that mistake is on you. We hate to win!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 03:21 |
|
|
I don't see any reason to give to the national party at this point. I donated directly to Rob Quist in Montana. Somebody has to and the party aint gonna. Why the gently caress are they writing off Montana's at-large district. The state elected a Democratic governor in 2016 and they have a two-term Democratic senator. Yet they treat it like it's Texas or something and they just can't win a statewide election there. Oh yeah and the Republican running against Quist is the same billionaire carpetbagger everyone hates who managed to underperform Trump by 9 points in a statewide election and lose to a Democrat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 07:41
|
|