|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
spacejung posted:What would you propose to compel people to stop mentioning the Arkansas Governor's mansion? Maybe some kind of "three strikes provision" would help you feel more safe? Do what you want, it's only NFS who is shown to both be an idiot shill on the slave topic and has already thrown it out there as some kind of rhetorical Trump card a hundred times.
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Entirely unprompted. See this post.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
dox posted:do you really think a trump presidency is that much different from a clinton presidency aside from optics and controlling the narrative? it's all the same policy- we'd still be bombing third world countries whilst denying health care to those who need it... the whole "b-b-but trump" shtick doesn't seem to add up Off the top of my head: Supreme Court (so that's gerrymandering, policing, Citizens United sticking around, and major union issues right there) Everything the Justice Dept does. Immigration policy. Everything the EPA does. The possibility of 20 million people losing their insurance.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
What's your solution to a 7-2 Supreme Court banning union dues?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:She's going to loving run again. I really loving hope primary voters are smart enough to not give her a second shot. Not even Chuck Schumer will give her a second shot.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:Ah yes, Hillary Clinton, noted friend of Unions and enemy of unlimited corporate funding of politicians. Snark all you want. We know how each party's Supreme Court nominees come down on these issues. And you know that's what's being discussed. The virtue of the person doing the appointing is not relevant to who gets appointed. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Jul 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Maybe try considering the viewpoint of the actual majority of black voters who voted for her rather than just being a smug edgelord telling them they voted for slavery?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yes, we know how worthless centrist judges are on the issues. and hillary's a worthless centrist so we'd get garland or someone the republicans suggested Are all the democratic-nominated justices on the Supreme Court now worthless centrists and if so when was the last one who wasn't? I am curious where you draw the line.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why are you asking me who constitutes a worthless centrist when i already gave you an example of one (garland)? another example would be kennedy Are all the current democratic appointed justices sitting on the Supreme Court worthless centrists, y/n?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
Condiv posted:n, some of them are extremely conservative, some of them are left-leaning. you're fishing really hard to find a reason for what i said to be unreasonable Who is extremely conservative on the Supreme Court out of the four justices appointed by Bill Clinton or Obama? And who is a "worthless centrist" by your definition. Grow the gently caress up and define your parameters.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 19:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:why are you asking me who constitutes a worthless centrist when i already gave you an example of one (garland)? another example would be kennedy Why do you act so assured that these would be the exact type of justice appointed by a democrat when the four on the court you admit lean left?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
Not to throw shade on painstaking wikipedia but that tells me nothing about how Garland would rule on overturning Citizens United on the Supreme Court. It only tells me he applied the law as the Supreme Court determined it. Which is what almost all lower court judges would do. Also, the only reason we have Citizens United in the first place is because of Republican appointed justices. I think they should not be elected so they don't appoint more. And I'm actually willing to vote and encourage others to vote rather than sit on my rear end. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Jul 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
If you mean do I want new leadership at the DNC/House/Senate. And I always said Hillary Clinton was a terrible candidate. Do I want to primary every Senator? No. There's other ways of pushing the party.twodot posted:So I agree this doesn't say a lot, but you claimed: There is a lot of research on judicial ideology based on voting patterns. Unsurprisingly, on left/right ideology Garland is basically another Breyer, and Gorsuch is to the right of even Scalia.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
I don't care who gets primaried but in the general I will not apologize for voting to keep the seat from going to some Tea Party crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Condiv posted:
What would be better if his GOP opponent in 2012 won?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 21:14
|
|
we should stop voting for republicans who pretend they're democrats like manchin. they're making progress that much more difficult
|
It's not about the primary, it's about what strategy to take after the primary's over if I don't much like the nominee. Reading comprehension is key here.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Condiv gets it and is just playing this little rhetorical game here, which is fine except I can just shoot back "why are you talking about Republicans if this is the bad Dem thread  "As usual NFS does not even get what the conversation is about and is just twisting it to fit some sick takedown of a predicted neoliberal talking point. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Jul 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Like most things in life... it depends. Holy poo poo a nuanced answer! If the race is close and I believe candidate X will vote for more bad poo poo than candidate Y, I will vote Y. If I don't like Y I will vote against Y in the primaries but not hatevote for X because of some ten dimensional chess.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Well aside from the question of admitted Trump voters and their defenders, I still see not voting as basically handing the most regressive elements of our society a default win.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Fortunately such an extreme example is not what's going on.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
See, what this thread has done in many cases, and I'm sure it's in reaction to some  stuff in part, has been basically to imply that any non-CTH voter is scum.To me this is foolhardy if you want to be more than a rump faction. Blaming voters who are somewhat aligned won't convince anyone you're a movement they should join. Now some people are fine with that because they care more about purity politics, but I suspect Bernie Sanders or his successors care more about getting more votes and less about insular bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:
That's just my personal moral outlook on things. It sure as hell isnt a campaign strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 22:04
|
|
how can you even post this after blaming third party voters for trump
|
Democrats obviously need some Senators from red states if they're ever going to have another majority. Which states do we have to abandon as Insufficiently leftist keeping in mind we probably have to do the same with some "blue" neoliberal states too, right?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Shorter NFS: White fragility.txt
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i'm not advocating for abandoning states (cause guess what! my state is an abandoned state!!) Good for you. Maybe you should run for office. Seriously. I was responding to this "why be red state Dems at all" thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Condiv posted:remember ossoff, and how shittily he did. it's cause when it came down to it the biggest differences between him and his opponent was which party was backing them. and hey, ossoff's party is somehow even less liked than the republicans or trump Seems to depend on the state/district and the candidate. Ossoff probably isn't more conservative than Manchin even though WV is way more conservative than GA-6. There are still blue dogs who get elected. Some of them are more eager to associate with Sanders than with Clinton. Doesn't mean they need to be beloved figures by the left, but if there is a more leftist alternative by all means let them take a shot at the primary. This is why we have primaries ffs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:you're right. I know, let's demand the 60 percent of primary voters who didn't go our way last time literally bow down in the language of a neckbeard 70 yr old pervert fantasy writer. That'll show them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Even better, let's pretend that every dem supporter's political opinions were locked in place by their vote in the 2016 primary and shall remain unchanged for all time. Well the neckbeard quote isn't how I'd go about softening them up but whatever. Maybe they love being told "gently caress you" by way of a neckbeard in a beret.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
If it's not a minority in the party it can just win primaries, no?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Yes, it can. And as people get more and more angry I think you'll start to see progressive upsets happen more and more often. i agree most of the party is progressive. I'm just not sure progressive means to me what it means to you. How many Dem Senators do you think will get successfully primaried in 2018 and 2020? I predict the number is zero.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
To me success means a lot more federal office holders will get behind single payer. I know that some of our regulars have a hard on for purges tho, but if the standard is "every dem senator is a neoliberal shill at best" (which is a position taken by some here) they ain't purging poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 26, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
They'll just change their position. That's politics. Happened with same sex marriage. But if you disagree, tell me which Dem US senators you see getting successfully primaried in the next 4 years. I might just Toxx you on it if I think it's ridiculous enough.. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:It's actually better than we've got Gorsuch in instead of Garland because we know exactly what Gorsuch is going to do in every situation. Garland would just serve to give false hope when he inevitably stabbed us in the back on a major issue, but King Hussein was too busy hoping to get patted on the head by McConnell and told he was a good boy to actually do anything helpful. 2 stars for effort
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 01:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
What democratic initiatives have been better since the GOP took those seats?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
"Bend the knee" is pretty much only in popular culture because of George RR Martin, hence the neckbeard joke (this is still something awful dot com right? hough the CTH guys do give out that vibe too if I'm being honest). More's the pity if you don't know the other, original bad thread. Come to the book barn and post about Gurrm.
yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 17:27
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:The stupid quibbling over "is the phrase 'bend the knee' sexist" is exactly the distraction centrists would love us to focus on instead of the real issues. I'm not quibbling over whether it's sexist. I'm quibbling over whether it's neckbeardy as all gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Condiv posted:The DCCC wants to bring them back as the future of the dem party Anyone can run in the primaries. If your district has a progressive majority they can easily nominate someone else.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Posting on this site is neck beardy af Posting bout neckbeards in SA? I never.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Dmitri-9 posted:So if the bad dems do get primaried we can assume you wont squeal like a stuck pig about it? Correct. It's not me who's making a bunch of assumptions.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If democracy and dictatorship of the majority are so awesome and just, why are you not satisfied with total GOP domination? They control everything, that means they are universally popular. Good lord, you are dense. I welcome the hypothetical future progressive majority. I just think it ain't gonna come from temper tantrums but by getting more votes.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 27, 2017 18:18
|
|