|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Peachfart posted:The difference is when a union withholds their labor, the business is shut down and it has a noticeable effect. When the left withholds their votes, they just get lumped in with the other 50% of the country that doesn't bother voting. I'm not saying you need to vote for Hillary, but not voting gets you nowhere. Agreed. You should always vote, even if you're not voting for one of the two major candidates. Even writing in "My Balls" is a better choice than staying home.
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
readingatwork posted:You mean the ones the party leaders rig behind the scenes and where establishment candidates start the race with a bunch of free votes in the form of superdelegages? E: There's a thread for this salt now. But of course the way to change the party rules and platform and leadership is also to participate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:not voting gets you nowhere. it got you universal health care being grudgingly accepted in dem circles
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Barbe Rouge posted:it got you universal health care being grudgingly accepted in dem circles Bernie's successes in the primary were also a contributing factor. He's the right salesman, just working for a poo poo company.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Bernie's successes in the primary were also a contributing factor. He's the right salesman, just working for a poo poo company. Please tell us more about third party politics in the US, person from parliamentary country... 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Is the name actually ironic or is this always the "gently caress democrats" thread? Primary season is the time to take your party to task over being lovely, no in the general. Ceding control of the federal government to the party of "dismantle government now" is one of the worst possible outcomes I can imagine. So Hilary is a neocon hawk piece of poo poo, so what? 4 more years of "Just War Theory" residing in the whitehouse would be better than 4 years of "Just War theories, folks. Only the best, most tremendous war theories." Chilichimp fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Sep 16, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Is the name actually ironic or is this always the "gently caress democrats" thread? this is a strawman argument, please read the thread from the beginning
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Please tell us more about third party politics in the US, person from parliamentary country... He's not wrong though
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Is the name actually ironic or is this always the "gently caress democrats" thread? It would be true if Dems were willing to approach primaries seriously. But couple months ago Dem lawyers argued at court that the party was a private organization that could disregard its primary process if it chose to... If the primary process is broken, then the only way to show politicians that they will be punished for promoting harmful policies is not to vote for them in the general. So in short, it's in the interest of the Democratic Party to commit more seriously to a democratic and universal primarying process.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
I can't understand how someone can bring up primaries now that the Democrats have literally admitted in court that they rig their primaries and have the right to do so. And that the court agreed with them. So now they can rig their primaries and not even have to pretend like they're not. And people are still expected to vote for them, even though the party itself is an undemocratic entity that cannot be changed in any way other than paying it a shitload of money? Spoil your ballots, everyone, a vote for Deez Nuts is a vote for the democrats being a waste.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Is the name actually ironic or is this always the "gently caress democrats" thread? trumps's presidency is better than a potential hillary presidency because everything he does is getting put up under a microscope and its association with him condemns it, and the democrats look like they might actually try to get their poo poo together and support cool policies like voting reform or universal healthcare. none of that would have come under hillary. trump may be undoing a lot of cool things that obama put in place, but he's not exactly doing new damaging things that could have dangerous ramifications for the future like bush or even obama did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
Goa Tse-tung posted:this is a strawman argument, please read the thread from the beginning I'm referring to the last couple pages of real posters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:So Hilary is a neocon hawk piece of poo poo, so what? 4 more years of "Just War Theory" residing in the whitehouse would be better than 4 years of "Just War theories, folks. Only the best, most tremendous war theories." Why? Why is Trump's imperialism necessarily worse than Hillary's?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:trumps's presidency is better than a potential hillary presidency because everything he does is getting put up under a microscope and its association with him condemns it, and the democrats look like they might actually try to get their poo poo together and support cool policies like voting reform or universal healthcare. none of that would have come under hillary. I mean, thats a nice silver lining, I guess. I understand the idea ya'll are pushing, force the democrats to cater to the left, or lose elections. It's not my view, but ya'll do you, I guess. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
It's madman theory. Make the DNC think you are crazy enough to not vote (D) if they cross you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Trump won because Hillary and the Democrats would not address this during the general election: https://twitter.com/jacobinmag/status/908809315397578754 It's a sobering article. Half the country does not even loving work and Hillary never even talked about giving these people access to college or healthcare. It's no wonder she lost. The democrats are a waste
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Why? Why is Trump's imperialism necessarily worse than Hillary's? Because their platforms and parties represent more than that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
It was the Clinton administration that pushed for NAFTA and deregulated the financial sector. Voting for right wing """"centrist""" democrats in any election, primary or general, isn't "strategic", its casting a vote against your own standard of living for the benefit of grifters and the rich.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:i don't understand what you're saying, could you rephrase it or explain it to me? changing the Democrats is the easy part.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
NAFTA is good, free trade is good. But the benefits were directed entirely to the rich, and the negatives were pushed onto the poor and middle class. You can have free trade and direct the increase in standard of living by implementing an mincome and by taxing the now richer rich to build better infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:NAFTA is good . . . . the benefits were directed entirely to the rich, and the negatives were pushed onto the poor and middle class. You just precisely described why NAFTA was bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
RedSpider posted:Trump won because Hillary and the Democrats would not address this during the general election: free college is ultimately born of the the same kind of bullshit behind the establishment Democrats' Better Deal "what people need is better skills"
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Because their platforms and parties represent more than that? No they don't. Not to the people harmed by US Imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:You just precisely described why NAFTA was bad. Well, you are correct. NAFTA in a vacuum isn't helpful for anything but making the rich richer. But it increases GDP, which could help fund programs to help the poor. Except we didn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Well, you are correct. NAFTA in a vacuum isn't helpful for anything but making the rich richer. But it increases GDP, which could help fund programs to help the poor. So NAFTA is bad. And free trade, as championed by both the Democrats and the Republicans, is bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Lol scope out the idiot who never read Bad Samaritans
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Please tell us more about third party politics in the US, person from parliamentary country... Watching the NDP become the official federal opposition party for the first time ever was pretty cool. Then it all disappeared...  Don't pretend for a second we don't have our share of technocratic Clintonites though, *CoughKathleenWynneCough* and an economic centrist PM that won by trading off his dad's legacy and family name. Is it wrong that I still poo poo on the Greens here?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:free college is ultimately born of the the same kind of bullshit behind the establishment Democrats' Better Deal "what people need is better skills" If you give me an adequately funded government I can get everyone a job that has opportunities for growth, accomplishes needed tasks and doesn't require college.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:It's madman theory. Make the DNC think you are crazy enough to not vote (D) if they cross you. Mutually Assured... Donald? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:No they don't. Not to the people harmed by US Imperialism. I don't believe that a "Just War Theory" Democrat is more imperialistic than a nativist Republican with fascist tendancies and straight-6 hard-on for military power. I mean, CALL ME CRAZY, but I don't think those two compare re: "American Imperialism".
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:I don't believe that a "Just War Theory" Democrat is more imperialistic than a nativist Republican with fascist tendancies and straight-6 hard-on for military power. That's true. If the liberal media is to be believed, Trump has been far more reserved about using military force than Clinton would have been.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
Describing the liberal-centrist outlook toward military force as "Just War Theory" is giving them way too much credit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:The difference is when a union withholds their labor, the business is shut down and it has a noticeable effect. When the left withholds their votes, they just get lumped in with the other 50% of the country that doesn't bother voting. I'm not saying you need to vote for Hillary, but not voting gets you nowhere. I mean the current atmosphere for progressive/socialist politics in America proves you wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Is the name actually ironic or is this always the "gently caress democrats" thread? There were good things and bad things about Hillary Clinton losing to Donald Trump.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Describing the liberal-centrist outlook toward military force as "Just War Theory" is giving them way too much credit. Also there hasn't been a single war since WWII that the US has been justified in entering. The liberal-centrist excuse for war is basically "Well we have to do something" even though US intervention is always a catastrophe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:Describing the liberal-centrist outlook toward military force as "Just War Theory" is giving them way too much credit. Correct, the Just War Theory demands that the instigator have a plan to end the war, and enough resources to enact it in as short a time frame as possible. Instead the liberal establishment cherishes forever wars where they support one side just enough to keep them alive, but not enough to give them a chance of winning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Correct, the Just War Theory demands that the instigator have a plan to end the war, and enough resources to enact it in as short a time frame as possible. Instead the liberal establishment cherishes forever wars where they support one side just enough to keep them alive, but not enough to give them a chance of winning. Forever wars are the market based solution to country building so it makes sense that centrist libs would support them. Actually rebuilding a country requires significant resources and an actual guiding ideology so of course they would rather just leave countries that we invade as hellish forever wars than actually commit to anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:Also there hasn't been a single war since WWII that the US has been justified in entering. The liberal-centrist excuse for war is basically "Well we have to do something" even though US intervention is always a catastrophe. Guessing south korea would disagree with this sentiment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
tsa posted:Guessing south korea would disagree with this sentiment. And Kuwait.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 19:30 |
|
|
Idgaf about Kuwait. The Korean War was at least backed by a UN coalition. It was also waged by a republican general for imperialist ends. And US military policy isn't entirely or even mostly about actual legit warfare. It's mostly about arming despots and assassinating peasants.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2017 01:18
|
|