|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
SSNeoman posted:This isn't an Electorial College. The majority chose this. They can live out the consequences. I'm done having pity for these people. my family's voted dem in every election back to my grandpa. but they live in a red state. guess they get to get punished too so you can teach them a lesson
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
sudo rm -rf posted:It's possible to be a dyed-in-the-wool socialist and still think third-party voters are dumb as hell. he attacked third party voters in blood red states where dems don't have a snowballs chance in hell. that's tilting at windmills, cause while a third-party can't win there, neither can a dem thanks to the national dems abandoning these states.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:If someone chooses to suffere, how does me not stopping them make it my fault? why not coddle this guy, who gets little to no funds from the DNC? Oklahoma Democratic Party Chairman posted:2016 was a Trump tornado and some very good Democratic candidates were its casualties. This cycle shows that Oklahoma, as well as the nation, is ready for a change. The establishment elite and political power brokers have failed us all. it sure would be nice if his party wasn't emaciated from no funds because everything that comes in gets hoovered up by the national party to throw at terrible outreach like this: https://vimeo.com/185625717
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 05:41
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Oh! NOW I remember you! You were in that dumb as poo poo third-party voter thread ahahahaha. Did you give me my custom title this time too? nah i voted gloria la riva. and no i didn't give you your red text you baby. i haven't even gotten around to buying an avatar again after hillary lost, so why do you think i have $10 to waste on giving you a title?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:something to be said about supporting lost causes so ardently i've supported the dems all my life, so yeah i've been supporting a lost cause pretty ardently or at least you would have it be a lost cause since you're against helping red states elect democrats
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 06:00
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Shame she's not a dem tho a dem didn't run for the presidency. a corporate stooge did. i'd have still voted for her if i lived in a purple state, but i don't. i don't because dems have left my states and others like kansas uncontested for so long. and now you're arguing that we should just leave them red forever to teach people a lesson the craziest part of this is you're arguing that for kansas now, when kansas just showed it's winnable if we gave some effort. the guy who ran was a pretty typical democrat, not some out there crazy lefty. it would've been good if we'd got that seat and it was a huge misstep for the national party not to step in and support him like the repubs did their candidate. Condiv fucked around with this message at 06:09 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 06:07
|
|
|
the government here is basically letting businesses regulate themselves wrt workers compensation. they also let the companies set timeframes for treatment, where if you aren't better by time the window closes, too bad. sure would be nice if we had a stronger dem party that could help fight back against such abuses, but the dems have left the state party with practically no funding for a long time. now we have situations where not one county goes blue in elections anymore by letting the republicans be the only voice you let extremism (see: trump's fascism) grow, and enable extremist psycho republican senators and house members at the same time! seems like a bad idea, thankfully perez has thought up this thing called a 50-state strategy, where we fight in every state at every level
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
dont even fink about it posted:Good luck persecuting them man, but if you want to win in the marketplace of ideas all you have to do is market. that's what i'm advocating for. dems don't market in red states right now at all. the dnc has left those state level parties high and dry
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 08:58
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Like dude, Condiv voted for a party in 2016 which had a record high of 70k votes. 60k from California. Now if next election they get 20 times that number, they'll finally be able to take the Green party's spot on the bench of irrelevancy. as effective as voting for a dem in a state dems weren't going to win actually. are you sure you understand how the EC works? or do you actually think oklahoma was gonna swing blue in 2016?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Cause even if in some fever dream your dipshit third rate chucklefucks get some momentum going, they will get crushed by the two main parties. Or by one of the two main parties cause they don't have that kind of bankroll. Why should I have wasted my vote on abuela? Other candidates were more closely aligned with me and hillary told me to vote my conscience...
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:When we lived in Oklahoma last year my wife registered as a Republican so she could at least pick the least bad Republican running for local offices in their primary, since that was the only vote that really mattered. I bet there's a lot of would be Democrats in red states that the Dems have abandoned who do the same thing. sadly, doing something like that locks us out of choosing the presidential candidate. it's p hosed up :/ thankfully, the registered dems left in oklahoma saw bernie's worth. it makes me proud Condiv fucked around with this message at 13:26 on Apr 13, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This is what really makes it clear that, to many liberals, seeing conservatives "get what's coming to them" is more important than actually helping people. And - surprise surprise - this is very much the same sort of motivation many conservatives have. this was real evident during the election and it was p disgusting. the centrists were all more interested in picking someone who would "drive republicans crazy" than actually help people.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:That isn't how democrats think and it's not why Hillary Clinton won the primary. then a lot of people who were pro-hillary on these forums weren't democrats.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:you're mentally ill. I will embrace your views of me and vote to ensure you can never get the mental health you so desperately need. um ok
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oh, they do, but I was referring more to working class folks, and particularly people of color. They didn't vote for Clinton just to make conservatives mad. no, they didn't. but there were a lot of those "vote for hillary to piss off republicans types" on here. it was frequently their first argument when you'd bring up that hillary wasn't really doing anything to fix anything
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:When did I ever say that? I said we can write off Kansas, not red states that can be taken. Stop jumping at centrists in the shadows and chill. so, red states that can be taken are what? +2 D?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:+10 +15 R. Any higher and it's a gamble. +20 is a gamble. +30 is a waste. except people were screaming at the dems to invest BEFORE the election. when the repubs were bringing in the big guns to keep the seat cause they were panicked. besides, i'm for a 50 state strategy where we're fighting in every state. i mean, if excuses are made cause the elections are hard, my state's the first that would lose out, so it only makes sense for me to support a 50 state solution despite the headcanon you've built up around me.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
here's an op-ed piece from the guardian about how much of a waste the dems were in this most recent race: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/13/progressive-democratic-candidates-james-thompson-loss#comments quote:In defending their decision, party mouthpieces have taken the absurd line that giving Thompson money would have actually hurt his chances of winning, because then everyone would have known he’s a Democrat, and Kansans hate Democrats. (Let’s take a moment to appreciate these are the same people who keep saying the party doesn’t need a new direction.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Who was it again that argued that DNC chair didn't matter and that even if it did Perez was the best equipped to implement a 50 state strategy anyway? Haven't caught up to every thread but have any of these posters recanted? no they've now entered the "you idiots actually believed that he would do X? you just projected what you wanted on him" stage of explaining away dem terribleness
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
bernie |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 19:39
|
|
posted:
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:https://twitter.com/MeetThePress/status/852989593041481730 if they're gonna take it, yes they should spend it effectively. you're right that i hate them taking dirty money. i hate them taking dirty money and then not helping candidates even more
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I think it's a lot more complex than that. In many (probably most) cases politicians aren't voting in ways that benefit corporate interests only because said interests gave them money. There's also the problem that politicians generally get most of their information from said interests. An example is politicians getting information on finance and how to write financial legislation from current or past employees/executives in the financial sector. At the end of the day, it's difficult for people outside of those "wealthy urban professionals" circles to access and influence politicians, even if you remove money from the picture. There's also an inherent issue where most people with expertise in (for example) the financial services industry probably will have experience working there, so you end up with a situation where the most knowledgeable people are most knowledgeable because they're heavily invested in a particular industry. i wonder why the rich and powerful have easy access over everyone else could it be bribery? (it is)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Not wholly. Ytlaya is definitely right that the mere fact that our political class' social circle is going to be composed of a very specific segment of the population ensures that this segment has a huge leg up in terms of access, even before you add varying degrees of bribery. Plus rich people have far more class consciousness than everyone else. the main leg up in access aside from bribery is the institutional barriers to anyone but the ultra-wealthy running for office. but even if we suddenly injected a ton of poor people into congress, they'd still enter .1%er social circles cause of the favors they would receive, which are far too legal nowadays. we need to make poltiical office accessible to the poorest man, not only the richest ones. in fact, it'd be kind of fun to ban anyone in the 1% richest part of the population from holding office at all
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Not a terrible idea. I've been reading Thomas Frank's Listen, Liberal, and one of his big points is how too much emphasis on meritocracy has hurt the Dems. Rich people go to Ivy League schools, Ivy League schools pump out politicians, those politicians swim in the same schools as other Ivy League alums, rinse and repeat. well, dems treating said institutions as meritocratic even when idiot clowns who can't work a poncho like GWB could get in speaks volumes about their delusions
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/328405-clinton-campaign-plagued-by-bickering Why did we have a petulant whiny child as presidential candidate? e: she probably spent all night throwing a temper tantrum when she lost. That's probably why she just told her fans to get lost Condiv fucked around with this message at 14:08 on Apr 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2017 14:04
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.f0901f8818fa 400k? that's it? that's not many variables for big data. i guess she bought into the big data tech bubble craze like an idiot and was just fumbling around in the dark, cause i don't see how simulations based on so few variables run daily could ever give her an appropriate view of what she should be doing. hillary is dumb in many ways though. she blames all her failures on anyone and everyone around her, so if she had become president she'd gently caress all our lives up and then blame us for it. she got suckered by a man named mook, and she got tricked by george w bush (the monkey guy who can't figure out ponchos). Condiv fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Apr 17, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2017 09:38
|
|
|
well, bernie's officially helping quist out: http://robquist.org/bernie-sanders-backs-rob-quist-will-campaign-montana-next-month/ where's the DNC? oh right, they're so toxic that they can't be associated with or aid candidates in red states (cept one in georgia, who is completely coincidentally strongly aligned with the establishment) edit: lets see what wonderful hillary people got on the unity commission... jeff berman? https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/697468224267399169 geo group lobbyist huh? i wonder what they lobby for quote:The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO) is a Florida-based company specializing in corrections, detention and mental health treatment. It maintains facilities in North America, Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom. In 2015 the GEO Group's federal contracts with the United States government for operating prisons generated about 45% of its revenues. oh. hillary still loves the hell out of private prisons huh? Condiv fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Apr 18, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 07:53
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Sadly, only evidence I have is anecdotal, but they do exist. I could post Facebook screenshots but it's not like there's studies on this They were probably Russian bots, designed to trick fool hillary supporters.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
axeil posted:If you have no skills or abilities you should be taken care and shouldn't be allowed to starve but that's it. A base level of being taken care of, not luxury. You should not have the same standard of living as people who provide value to society. what about the handicapped? do they deserve a base standard of living? will you be repealing the ADA so we can stop burdening society with the needs of less-useful people? how many bowls of gruel does a handicapped person get a day?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
axeil posted:I agree! That's why I said they'd be provided for. what qualifies as adequate to you? what qualifies as reasonably comfortable? is it 3 bowls of gruel a day and a room in the american equivalent of a japanese capsule motel reasonably comfortable for the great unwashed have-nots?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Since he started regurgitating Syria war propaganda I've become like like 90% sure he's a Correct the Record style paid internet troll. more posts = better value to society
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
axeil posted:
it can't possibly be correct cause you just got done saying the have-nots don't deserve nice things axeil posted:I agree! That's why I said they'd be provided for.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:Eh...yes and no...Legalizing pot has been a strong plank...The rest of the ball of nastiness most middle to well heeled whites will just start whistling and trying to look innocent. Which part of the left had power to do anything about this though? I've been for addiction treatment instead of criminalization for a long long time, but it's never been "possible" for the dem party. I'd like the dems to actually pursue policy like this though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:From, you know, the book that just came out. what's that? hillary had so little reason to run for president she had to pay people to find reasons?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 19:24
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:"Right from the start, a threat to Mook's vision of total control existed in the form of a scrappy grassroots PAC called Ready for Hillary. And not even the expressed wishes of Bill and Hillary Clinton could keep Mook from crushing it." grassroots? more like weeds *stomps vigorously* HannibalBarca posted:
ahahahahahaha hillary's an idiot
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
axeil posted:https://twitter.com/AaronBlake/status/855015900495458304 it'd also help a lot of black people since they make up a large share of marijuana convictions the WoD in general is really poo poo for black people since it imprisons them the most and steals their property, even though white people are way more likely to use and sell
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:25
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Isn't the Corbynista position that his terrible favorability numbers are due to backstabbing centrists? it's a good position too but this is the thread about dems, not the corbyn thread so please go to one of the uk threads if u wanna argue about corbyn being bad
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:My state passed a legalization referendum. The Democrats have not only come out against it, they have attempted to postpone it, subvert it, and undo it. you wanna take food out of their private prison buddies mouths? u don't want the cops to get a few tanks with money they stole from black people? why are you so racist?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Lately some have been talking about how it would limit the ability of the police to do searches since they wouldn't be able to do so based on smelling weed. you want to stop the police from getting the bad guy? maybe you got something to hide? 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
Kilroy posted:http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/19/15351888/panera-bread-ossoff how can we increase our share of votes? let's target the 1%!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:56
|
|
