|
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 | ||
|
Fulchrum posted:Okay, fair enough, claims of false equivalency withdrawn. However, America has demonstrated that it has not even considered at any point up to now distributing either nuclear material or weapons to actors. With Iran, there is no such history or show of restraint. Thus, just blind trust in the nation if it immediately went crazy and started putting everything it had into developing nuclear weapons, would be a poor choice to anyone with half a brain. You do realize there is a country that has done this right? It's Pakistan and just a quick bit of a refresher course Pakistan is not Iran and Pakistan has a history of spreading it's nuclear material and knowledge around. It's surmised they were a huge boost to North Korea's program. Pakistan was (still is) a big supporter of the Taliban and vicariously Al Qaeda.
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
Condiv posted:is that supposed to be a joke? They just can't help but show their disdain for anyone who isn't wealthy member of the donor class
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:I also want to point out that a good political leaders works within their current circumstances while striving for and advocating something better. For example, working to get health insurance for all while advocating single payer, not saying single payer "will never ever" happen. One of those approaches inspires people and one does the opposite Yeah but if Democrats inspire their voters than those voters will expect them to do things that make donor class angry and the Democrats will never go against their true constituents
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 05:40
|
|
|
tekz posted:gently caress the Democratic party: https://theintercept.com/2016/05/03/single-payer-dems-colo/ For fucks goddamn sake and people will still defend the Right Wing of the Dems to their death. No wonder Left Wing action has no traction in America it get's attacked by the very people who in theory should be for it. gently caress the donor class and the consultants they're all parasites
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Have you considered that perhaps the reason Colorado for Coloradans was able to torpedo the single payer initiative there, is that leftists in Colorado didn't fight hard enough? Obviously Left Wing ideas have no traction, there's no money it. We can't expect Democrat to support policies that won't make them or the donor class rich. That's just crazy talk
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 08:36
|
|
|
QuoProQuid posted:both of new york's senators are well-established and have no interest in retiring. cuomo and de blasio will run for re-election. I would love for us to bash on Cuomo more, especially as a New Yorker. He's everything awful about the democrats turned up to 11. If he has a shot at a national career than everything negative said by the left allot democrats outs proven true and they deserve for the party to continually fall into obscurity. If course the problem is Clinton will probably be fund raising and organizing for people like Cuomo so there is that
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 14:10
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Corruption is misuse of power. Giving someone a job because of nepotism isn't corruption. Nepotism isn't a sign of corruption.... Jesus Christ
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 14:58
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The Democratic Party is institutionally incapable of learning. People keep saying Clinton but I don't think so. It'll be Cuomo/Booker, in some variation. At which point the party collapses right into the singularity up an oligarchs rear end
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Mark my words. The DNC will throw Chelsea a safe Senate seat vacated by some ancient Democrat in 2018 and run her with an inoffensive centrist grey-haired good old boy in 2020. God I hope you are wrong it'll be too soon if I ever have to hear the names Bush or Clinton involved in US politics again
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
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? You know the guy who is the most popular politician in America right now who is trying to remind the Louisville that the Democrats are supposed to be for the people and not just the donor class. Or you know what someone else already made the comparison to Reagan losing to Ford in '76. So just because they lost to your loser doesn't mean they wouldn't win the main show.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesArkin/status/843896952400109568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Christ almighty how stupid are these people
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:When's the last time the dems haven't had at least a 10 point lead? Nixon? Al D'amato was among the last of the Rockefeller Republicans because those types all went and either became Democrats or just vote Republican out of habit. But Hillary beating the racist pizza shop owner from Do the Right Thing isn't really that hard fought of seat BI NOW GAY LATER posted:In 1998 Patacki had just won something like every county in New York in the governor's race and Rudy Guliani was a still fairly popular figure. Rudy Guliani was the most hated man in New York City on September 10th 2001 KomradeX fucked around with this message at 23:05 on Mar 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:most voters don't identify as "Democrat", "Republican", "Leftist", "Centrist" etc Much like how everyone thinks they're middle class most voters think of themselves as independents (because most voters are morons)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:"how much a campaign focuses on an issue" only adds up to 100%; spending more time on economics necessarily means less time on pluralism You just have to live the conservative thinking going on with this post. You going to argue that extending civil rights takes away rights from others because that's the end of where you're taking this. This post seriously argued that in fact we can inky accomplish one thing at a time. God save us from feckless liberals
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Frijolero posted:The nightmare never ends. Jesus Christ, democrats want to be ruled by dynasties! Why? Why do Americans crave monarchy
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that explains it Because we are not a sane country, and we worship people who fix with the left hand what they've destroyed with their right. Just look at the billionaires Democrats look up to. gently caress, look at Bloomberg who they so warmly welcomed at the convention back in July, who exploded NYC's homeless population and we're supposed to believe and get others to believe that democrats care about the less fortunate. That's why the Democrats have a credibility gap KomradeX fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Mar 22, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:How long this time before somebody clicks the link and figures out what misleading headlines are? Politifact is now Right Wing propaganda, For fucks sake
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:If they had said what Frijolero claims they said, yeah. Good thing they exist in reality, not your incoherent haze of rage against the Clinton's. Right here is the loving quote Daughter of Privilege posted:Hitting the campaign trail on her mother’s behalf, Chelsea Clinton attacked Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders’ universal health care plan. By your logic we shouldn't trust anything the New York Times says because of their often conservative view points. Christ I prefer snopes but Politifact will do in a pinch Have you ever considered that people might rightfully be angry at the Clintons for their actions in the 90s making life pretty loving hard for people on welfare and continuing that legacy of dismantling the public good for private profit. Christ I voted for Clinton cause what I thought the unlikely case was too horrible to imagine. But she failed us, in her hubris she failed us. I'm sorry that I also don't look forward to the sons and daughters of our current politicians becoming the newest members of the ruling class based on family names. We're not supposed to have an aristocracy why the gently caress are you obsessed with having one? We must forever be haunted by the names of the politicians of my childhood. It'll be too loving soon if I ever have to see the names Clinton or Bush involved in American politics again it'll be too loving soon
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 05:36
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:
The gently caress is wrong with you? How could you seriously make this argument?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I'm not. If you could follow an argument, that's the logical extension of what Kingfish is saying. You're insane if you think the logical end point of targeting the rich is people rallying around them because of comic book superheroes or Oprah. Jesus Christ Trump just won an election in part by being a rich person talking about how they've set the rules to benefit him and not regular people. Like he successfully demonized other rich people. Christ the 1% has become a part of our lexicon, people aren't going to think you're attacking Oprah and loving Batman when you talk about how the rich are loving them over. Jesus Christ Clinton losing must have broken your brain pretty drat bad if you've lost the plot so quickly There have been a lot of dumb arguments about why Left Wing action is impossible, but because people will feel bad for Oprah and Batman has to be a new level of shitposting
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Yeah, and the Democratic leadership you're so keen to suck off at every opportunity has done next to nothing for them either, and there is no reason to think that will change next time they're up, especially if you're any indication of where their collective head is at. So best case scenario is we keep going back and forth between two broken parties with nary an inspiring much less realistic vision for the future among them. Keep going, that is, until one of them seizes power in a way that the other can't wrest it back anymore which may have already happened and still you're over here hemming and hawing about how much change is too much change like a gibbering idio, which even then wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that it's people like you who are going to get the rest of us killed. Seriously, you don't live near a cliff or a bridge or something? Have a look around, would you? The bolded thing shows how these people are more comfortable with being conservatives when they unironically live the Bill Buckley life style of standing athwart history and shouting no, no change
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:And it [JC's anti-Trump thread] completely ignores the fact that Democrats are to close to Wall Street to even participate in such clearly advantageous political theater. That's why this thread is more important for the time being. The DNC can't implement a proper anti-Trump strategy without making serious changes itself. Is that thread even still active I don't think I've read it out seen it I the first page in a few days
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
call to action posted:Where did Democrats learn that "the new normal is just the way it is" and "can you imagine the impact this would have on American competitiveness?" are compelling slogans that should be communicated to an external audience? From all the Rockefeller Republicans that became Democrats
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
Really the defence of Clinton boiling down to she wanted a FENCE not a disgusting WALL is really insane. I just want everyone to think about that for a second. It's not anywhere near as racist as Trump Wall, but let's not pretend it isn't racist. Let's also not forget that Obama deported far, far more people than W did and it was Obama's immigration courts that decided that loving TODDLERS WERE COMPETENT ENOUGH TO DEFEND THEMSELVES IN COURT. I really want to emphasises that that happened and no one cared because Democratic racist policy is less openly awful than Donald Trump. We talk all we like about how the Democrats are tv's sensible ones in this protecting the border from the bad hombres...I mean cartels. But how is the security of America insured by returing coffee refugees fleeing massive cartel violence, to the violence they were trying to escape fueled by America's demand for illegal narcotics? How is America made more safe by returning little Pedro to Hondorus where he can be killed in gang violence, or to grow up add eventually join one of those cartels because it's the only good paying work around since it's better than being a slave in a sweatshop? These are the blind spots we have to deal with, and that's nite even getting into how successive Governments since the 80s have continually expanded the definition of what is a deportable crime to expand the number of people that it can be done to. Immigration crime has not increased, we decided to criminalize more behavior. KomradeX fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Mar 25, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Obama was literally splitting up families and his administration argued that TODDLERS could defend themselves in court for fucks sake! Like yes Trump is more evil, but what the Democrats have been doing has been pretty evil itself and lesser of two evils-ism doesn't loving work with human rights abuse. By the very fact that immigration and refugee advocates didn't have faith in Clinton or the Democrats. You can scream Trump is the worst all you want and out might be the only thing you aren't wrong about, but when the come back to you is the Democrats also arguably violated human rights and all you can do is keep saying how much worse Trump is. Well you've lost because it turns out people don't really care if the alternative to chaotic evil is lawful evil.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
Condiv posted:does it take republicans getting elected for the dems to take their jobs even the slightest bit seriously? Yes it does. But the second you elect them back into power they act like they have no idea what you're talking about they don't remember running on a Public Option or 15 dollar minimum wage. Just look at the Baltimore Mayor who ran on 15 dollars and just declared it's not going to happen. But hey intersectional NeoLiberalism so at least it was a black woman loving the poor minorities of Baltimore.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
The What Aboutism coming out of JC is almost hilarious. In the end that's all his brand of politics offers is, but the other guy is worse
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
Why are we treating refugees like immigrants? Refugees are not loving immigrants, let's stop conflating the two when they are muy the same. And especially even abusing them is a violation of human rights. You know that thing democrats say they care about until they're actually in power
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I've made three posts about her in this thread. I just don't think leftists (or anybody) should pin any hopes to her, because she's not a very good leader. Pretty much, she's an albatross on the Greens who now runs a vanity campaign every 4 years. She has her poo poo less put together than the Libertarians and they're a bunch of mouth breathing smooth brains dying from the heat given off by their 1997 Compaq tying to mine Bitcoins
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
America's policy on refugees is inexcusable especially since we are the number one cause of the violence and hardship they are fleeing. Especially the ones from Central and South America fleeing cartel violence driven by our insatiable desire for narcotics makes them risk life and limb and risking a thousand other ways to die in the desert. All for both of our political parties to turn around and say they should hurry up and die and decrease the surplus population. But democrats say it "less racistly" so that's okay.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Wait, in what way are the Democrats, in particular, responsible for the crisis in the first place? Well there are a loot of Honduran refugees driven by the coup and the resulting violence. The Democrats refusal to step away from the war on drugs and take measures that would actually diminish the cartels. That's moot even getting into their secret bombing campaign driving refugees in the rest of the world. And their refusal to act on companies that recruit "illegal" workers from Central and South America continuing a permanent underclass that our society is built on. There's no walking away from Omelas, indeed.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It has been, and the Dems do bear some responsibility. But as much as Bill Clinton deserves to be criticized for his neoliberal policies, I think a lot of lefties lose track of how much the ball was already rolling by the time he came into office. It's easy to say, "Well, of course Reagan supported neoliberalism - that's just the way Republicans are," but that just lets them off the hook. Everything Democrats do that's bad, Republicans do at least as bad. (except for, you know. Not winning) But the narrative has always been the Democrats stand for different values than Republicans. But when the continue to support and further polices that make more sense for Republicans well it plays into the thinking that both parties are the same. Christ in 2012 Obama said that him and Romney agree on most things, and I went no don't loving say that. If I hate Romney and everything he stands for (I do) and you agree with him on a majority of things why should I support you? And I didn't, I voted for him in '08 but I didn't in '12. That kind of poo poo is killing the Party. Whataboutism isn't really that great of a deflector, yeah the Republicans are the absloute worst but the Democrats being not that much better isn't really a feather in their cap. It's like saying yeah Ted sucks because he beats his wife but Ryan is worse cause he does the same and molests his daughter.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I agree, on the whole; I just think it's a little silly to try to use Latin America as an example of how the Dems are only marginally better than the Republicans, given how murderously awful the Republicans were over the past three decades. The Dems weren't SUFFICIENTLY better, no question, but they were certainly less awful. You're right the Republicans have been far worse but the problem is Democrats continue that policy and don't move it to be any better because their foregin policy sees Henry Kissinger as someone worth aspiring to be and that kind of precludes them from saying they're less awful.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yeah, well, it seems to me that the wind is blowing against neoliberalism, so you know. Hopefully that will pay dividends in U.S. foreign policy. I hope so too, but it remains to be seen if the Democrats will actually change into a party of opposite values of the republicans or of they will pretend to do that and go on acting like the last 17 years ever happened and not actually change a drat thing when they cone back into power
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:What's your prescription? Avoid blm? Not pay as much attention to black people? Cause duh racism effects electoral outcomes, but there's literally nothing we can do about that short of embracing racism ourselves Who ever said that the lesson the Democrats would learn coming out of 2016 would be, we have to get more racist, was 100 percent right
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:The thing is it was the establishment sycophants accusing the left of it, though. And now here we are. Of course they did ad still do because they're gong to try and triangulate the best position of racist policy and trying to be not "not racist." And when they keep losing they'll only compete for suburban "moderate" Republican voters more while treating everyone else as a loss cause and moot appealing to them because "they don't vote for us" Main Paineframe posted:What makes you think Obama has anything to do with it? If they voted for Obama and not for Hillary, wouldn't that be a problem with Hillary, not Obama? Abuela is perfect and cannot fail, only be failed. The Clinton Cultists are incapable of admitting that she had flaws KomradeX fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Mar 28, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
....Forget about it
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I love how you suggest anyone who doesn't bow down to neoliberals must not be of the right mind. He's being pretty goddamn ableist what with using that as an insult left and well more left with him. So much for tolerance and plurality
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:GM announced it would close Buick in 1997; it only shut its doors officially in 1999. It wasn't the only plant that closed in the 90's either, unfortunately. The UAW opposed NAFTA because it feared that what has happened in the Rust Belt, would happen. No don't you know NAFTA was great for working class Americans every economist I know has been chanting it like a mantra.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
I'm really glad you keep doubling down on using that as an insult. How very tolerant of you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2017 02:32
|
|