|
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 | ||
|
Fiction posted:It's not "whining about the primary" to correctly point out that the Dem leadership is still composed of politicians who will gently caress over their constituents for a buck because what are they gonna do, vote for Trump??? Pretty sure Haitians aren't their constituents
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
Except of course that that idiosyncrasy helped him lose the primary
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 01:13
|
|
|
Had Bernie been a Democrat before 2015 he very well could have won the primaries so it's great to see his supporters keep defending his dumb choice
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
Bernie both outraised and outspent Clinton during portions of the primary, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Condiv posted:which is good evidence that we don't need corporate donors to reach an effective level of campaign cash. sure, and it's also not a reason to be discouraged about the future
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Four little known candidates with no institutional support, when there were a number of high profile candidates who didnt run, after Democrats made it clear Bernie was the preferred candidate. this erasure of Roque De La Fuente will not stand
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Third way centrism writ large, her first public appearance in the primaries was as a very serious person there to explain why the public option was a pipe dream that would never happen, she's married to a venture capitalist, she is a venture capitalist. She's literally everything wrong about liberal upper class types. single payer, not public option
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:That's not what he said bud i agree, bernie sanders' propping up ben jealous as a spokesperson was highly problematic
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 05:24
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:They're not mutually exclusive, dipshit. "how much a campaign focuses on an issue" only adds up to 100%; spending more time on economics necessarily means less time on pluralism
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
oh, I think she overemphasized pluralism the DNC, for example, was pretty much entirely pluralism, except for the part that was jingo
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
then again, I thought "the election is a referendum on pluralism" was a slam-dunk winner but then again again, the 1/21 protests were waaaaay more about pluralism than economics
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
it's hard to nail down 2016 campaign Trump on economic policy because he either took all sides of an issue, sometimes in the same speech, or he spoke in such vague generalities that it invited people to project onto him. Meanwhile, "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" is still paying dividends in opposing his plans
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:it's hard to nail down 2016 campaign Trump on economic policy because he either took all sides of an issue, sometimes in the same speech, or he spoke in such vague generalities that it invited people to project onto him. like attacks on "Republicans Believe X" don't land because he's spent the past year making GBS threads all over Republican orthodoxies
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:What policies did Hillary Clinton campaign on that would have any impact on bigotry? not giving comfort to assholes who'd shoot Indians for being Muslim, for one
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
That's DSCC not DNC
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
I mean She's Not Wrong if Sanders comes out and says this in his big "why I'm a socialist" speechquote:I don’t believe government should own the means of production, but I do believe that the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal. when even our socialists are capitalist, I don't know why everyone's up in arms over "We Are Capitalists"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
yeah, it's DSA's position too. Here's what Bernie's said on the topic: quote:we need to provide assistance to workers who want to purchase their own businesses by establishing worker-owned cooperatives so Apple's market cap of 600 billion, divided by 66,000 employees... just $9m a worker!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Condiv posted: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 her answer was an explicit endorsement of this
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yes workers should receive what they actually make. I agree; Sanders is pretty clearly not talking about expropriating shareholder wealth in his endorsement of coops but like a SBA loan program
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
I mean, gently caress, Sanders keeps pointing to the Nordic model, which sure as poo poo is capitalism.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted: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" rewatch the video. she offered a solution: stakeholder capitalism
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Condiv posted:then why does nancy pelosi reject him for not being capitalist? that's why people are pissed about that answer. because you're projecting poo poo into her mouth?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Yes its a nice start. no, it really isn't. the crisis of capitalism is more than just "people can't afford healthcare and education", and having welfare liberalism as some kinda goal really is just dooming yourself to permanent second-class status under the stratospheric wealth of the .1%
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Thats not my goal. Thats just an early step. It's a dead end. It's why everyone talks about single payer being so great for businesses because they're gonna be spending less in taxes than they do on their employees' premiums. Or, to take up the frequent refrain of Democratic critics: why lead with a half-measure in a negotiation?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, sure, but that's why far left parties need to start pressuring more mainstream parties. Sure, but then Pelosi's answer was ok
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Oh gently caress off. You're acting like there is no form or system that can allow income inequality that doesn't automatically go straight to one old white guy owning all the money, and that all regulation and taxation will be meaningless before their unstoppable power. I'm not; there's plenty of ways that American capitalism can be made "kinder and gentler" without abandoning capitalism. Sanders ran on one; Pelosi mentioned another.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Why is everyone just ignoring his ludicrous claim that 200k puts someone in the .1% .1% is something like >$1.09m
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/aseitzwald/status/844916211024572418
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, remember, this discussion grew out of someone in the Trump Admin thread saying that poor white people who voted for Trump deserve to suffer from lack of health care. If you read my commentary on the topic in other threads, you'll see that I'm pretty insistent on the Dems running on helping the poor and disadvantaged across the board. ACA was like a 25% expansion to Medicaid (58m - 70m plus another 2m in the non-expansion states) enrollment before you even get into the marketplace subsidies
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Then it follows that they'll blame trump for conditions getting worse under his tenure and these voters will inevitably return to the democrats, who need change nothing to win the next election. Haven't you completely undercut your original point here? Voters can't be punishing Dems for bill Clinton's welfare policies if they don't understand policy and just retaliate against the party in power when they don't like present conditions. eh, indirectly if Clinton's policies set up the conditions under Obama... but that's an argument for breaking poo poo when Republicans are in charge
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
Condiv posted:she claims she did it because she thought it would give bush leverage to negotiate with saddam. she thought if she authorized him to go to war, he wouldn't go to war. y'know, despite agitating for a confrontation with iraq since the first he entered the office. Afghanistan AUMF was signed 9/18/01, invasion started 10/7/01. Iraq AUMF was signed 10/16/02, invasion started 3/20/03. Just based on the timelines, I don't think that there's no basis for claiming at the time that the Iraq AUMF was intended to display the seriousness of American insistence on Iraq's opening up to UN inspections. Regardless of the merits of this plan, I think there's something to be said at the time that the vote to go to war was not clearly going to lead to war. That being said, Clinton's explanation was basically "Bush lied to me" without saying that, and why she didn't just say "Bush lied, people died", I'll never know. Consider also the failure of the 2013 Syria AUMF with respect to Obama's calls for Assad to halt the use of chemical weapons.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The biggest downturns weren't in the 90's. GM started closing auto plants and moving jobs to Mexico in the 80's, and the biggest losses were in the 00's and particularly after the GFC. In fact, from 1992 to 2000 manufacturing employment increased in Michigan and Indiana and was static in Ohio. http://policybynumbers.com/the-decline-of-manufacturing-in-new-york-and-the-rust-belt How do they know to blame Clinton and the democrats and not Reagan/Bush/Bush and the Republicans if they have no awareness of policy and the vast majority of losses occurred under republicans? seriously, for gently caress's sake, Robocop was 1987.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:So you're saying you're the same brand of fool as Clinton? Cause it was obvious back then that bush was gearing up for another war, not looking to actually work with Iraq. I bet you fell for his faked WMD intel too I didn't think Blix was complaining about lack of access, so I thought Bush was being disingenuous in claiming that Iraq was somehow impeding access, so I thought it was a bad idea.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Imagine believing for one second that Bush wouldn't go to war after getting his AUMF. Why wait 5 months when Afghanistan took 3 weeks, then?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:The reason why the Dems retook Congress in 2006 was because the Republicans tried to privatize social security, you idiot. Well, Bush did; Congress didn't actually even try to move legislation
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/845375946970533888
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
"Medicare for all" that's actually single payer will look functionally more like Medicaid for all anyway so what's the problem
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LaurenDezenski/status/845405796863225858 this is a shift from 2012-yesterday when she would deflect these questions to "I support the ACA"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/tedlieu/status/845405728932331520
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 08:37 |
|
|
She ran on a $15/hr platform smdh
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2017 14:45
|
|