|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Democrats? Not fond of them.
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:So Condiv have you switched from Bizket to Linken Park? Lemme know when you're done with playing Crawlin' on loop and move onto Good Charlotte. Haven't heard that poo poo in years. Is this the centrist pushback? Against people saying mean things
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I'm actually left as gently caress I just don't tilt at windmills. IMHO in face of the utter collapse of pragmatism and its failure to achieve anything whatsoever, tilting at windmills is bound to have a better track record.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're making the incredibly unwise assumption that economic populism has nothing to offer in an R+30 district - particularly when most Dems haven't tried that strategy in quite a while anyway. Even Trumpists are now plurality pro single payer and other things, but we will still assume that you must triangulate the poo poo out of everything because that has been proven to work
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:55
|
|
|
axeil posted:I am just loving amazed that people are taking a 20 point swing from 2016 in under 6 months and somehow painting it as DEMOCRATS BAD. This is spectacular news and points to a good chance of winning GA-6, MT-AL and SC-19 plus the state-level races in NJ and VA in the fall. There was almost no chance of winning a district that in a neutral environment is R-30 barring the Trump piss tape leaking. Why does everyone seem to be pissed instead of elated? Because selection of representatives is a zero sum game, and failing to anticipate a possible victory and deploy resources to swing it from zero to all is in fact extremely infuriating.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I don't know, personally. While it may not be replicable in all districts or states, I think it's a big sign that the Dems should run hard on economic populism, because even a little of it can go a long way. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Craig K posted:in the alternate universe where this democrat who ran in a district that went r+a zillion actually WINS: Yeah, people have TOTALLY not been screaming at the DNC to support its candidates, it's just bitching now adter the fact.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:+10 +15 R. Any higher and it's a gamble. +20 is a gamble. +30 is a waste. That is a lie, and you know it. People have been arguing very consistently and passionately for a disciplined utilization of the 50 state strategy since before the presidential election.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Oh it's a lie? That's news to me. I can name three people who would be in histrionics if the DNC ever announced that. Name them right now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
Also I think you miss the point. The idea of the 50 state strategy isn't to get immediate results, even though right now is a unique situation to actually get immediate returns. It's. by its original reasoning, designed to slowly rebuild the party and get measurable results in the long term horizon, because you can't counteracts literally decades of Republican conditioning and Democratic absence in two fiscal years. Your reasoning is the same as when lovely CEOs keep dissecting and liquidating their companies when they fail to completely reverse long term trends in a single quarter.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:No, I'll get slapped by mods for importing drama, and rightfully so. Find em yourself if it concerns you so much. I'll even give you a date: a month after the election in the post-election thread. They were all pissed at Hillary for campaigning and buying ad space in Texas despite the fact that the state is actually pretty politically balanced and it could have worked. You are making poo poo up. The only anger at Hillary was that she spent so much money in blue states and robbed resources from states that were reporting they could use additional resources to tip the balance.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Jesus, asking people to learn is not nailing them on a cross. Even if the tone is hostile.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:*Looks at thread title* If you can't handle mean words, get the gently caress out of politics.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
Condiv posted:well, bernie's officially helping quist out: http://robquist.org/bernie-sanders-backs-rob-quist-will-campaign-montana-next-month/ You can tell somebody's progressive when they choose to surround themselves with literal supervillains, just the worst scum walking the earth atm.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 08:26
|
|
|
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 exist, but they are an insignificant fringe and have no desire to be involved in the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 09:12
|
|
|
Itt rentiers (by participation) ranting about welfare queens and moochers.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:It doesn't do you any favors to conflate bad policy with bad campaign strategy, though Stop pretending you and your ilk have anything worthwhile at all to say on topics of strategy and campaigning.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
call to action posted:I'm sorry but at the end of the day you're acting like a racist when you advocate against something minorities want and need (financial security) and instead advocate for mealymouthed nothingness instead. Put forth a mutually exclusive idea of how to help these people and show proof you're doing it or shut the gently caress up. Why are you racist against POC CEOs whose businesses would suffer if they had to accommodate better paid, safer employees?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 13:15
|
|
|
Feldegast42 posted:I had this amazing idea the other day You only get two spec points, and if you don't invest them both into the same tree, you won't get your free silver level talent, you fool, you traitor
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
I suppose that if you are comfortable enough yourself, it's easy enough to forget that others still need food, shelter, medicine, data... And the struggle then becomes a rhetorical thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:There's a lot more than that that can be done to fight racial injustice, though. Stuff like cracking down on racism and brutality in police forces, prosecuting companies and landlords for employment and housing discrimination, pushing for enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and fighting voter suppression efforts, or advocating for humane immigration reform? These are all super important things for leftists to fight for. If we don't fight for these things, then we don't deserve to say that we're interested in justice. But nobody ever says anything about giving up on those things. If anything the criticism of Clinton from the left were that she has done more harm than good on these issues so far, right now promises too little, and as such is not a credible reform candidate.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Majorian posted:You're 100% right, but that's something that takes a bit of historical digging to find out. What's most important, IMO, is not necessarily proving that it wasn't white leftists who were to blame for PoC being excluded from social welfare programs; it's to prove that now, at this stage in history, we do give a poo poo about PoC's struggles and barriers and hurdles, and that a lot of leftists nowadays are, in fact, PoCs and women and LGBT people. That's all I'm saying: just as it's important to let the white working class know that we give a poo poo about them, we also need to make sure that every group we claim to fight for, feels like it's being listened to, and has a place at the table. Is it possible to prove that, though? It seems undeniable that historically the white beneficiaries of progressive policies were at best ambiguous about their effects on minorities, quite content to limit their agenda on themselves. The truly universalist progressives would have been the exception. However, it is just counterproductive to assume that the mistakes of the past are a manifestation of some original sin, rather than a stepping stone towards improving leftist attitudes towards marginalized groups. Learning and improving rather than making essentialist assumptions should be an implicit assumption of any progressive movement.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:It's not "economic leftism" that can't be trusted but "economic populism", and the two terms aren't interchangeable The scope of the populus being courted can change, and should be taken into account. Assuming that all populism is the same in targeting the same people is disingenuous.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:There's so much irony in you pretending to support black people while calling them "blacks". Superpredators is a shorthand for much more complex issues. Clinton is still in bed with private prisons, the beneficiaries of her past advocated policies, as well as the main party profiteering from the suffering and discrimination of black Americans.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
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. How will they fill the prisons without a convenient scapegoat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't have any problem with these statements. I have a problem with people who espouse them but also claim Corbyn has disasterous approval ratings because he was Backstabbed, which was Condiv's assertion. Hillary isn't Corbyn. Sanders is Corbyn, Hillary's toadies in the DNC are the backstabbers. HTH. You don't get to make Hillary into a betrayed underdog.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
Alienwarehouse posted:This doesn't make gun control an intrinsically racial issue. I mean, unless you want to disarm minorities in the face of an increasingly militarized police. Nobody will ever use a gun against cops and come out on top.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:So are you trying to claim that a single primary challenger who campaigned on her behalf after the primary was somehow more damaging than the entire party of the opposition candidate making GBS threads all over their own candidate at every opportunity? Lol, hillarites are the babies they wish Trump to be so badly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 07:13
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:How could Bernie Sanders, the most popular politician, get fewer votes than Hillary, who nobody likes other than the feckless DNC, which has proven themselves to be incapable of winning elections? How can Obama be rated as a better president than Nixon when in 1968 nobody showed voter preference for Obama over Nixon? Jesus Christ, what is it like to be a shameless, spineless creep who is willing - day in day out - to sacrifice any remaining intellectual integrity in order to come up with a hot take, WJ?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Are these the same people that believe flyover states must EARN the privilege of being able to vote for a party that despises them and wants to see them beaten into submission?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Many Americans do want bipartisanship, but what they mean by bipartisanship is not what the Democrats tend to pursue. Many Americans want the other party to magically start supporting all your agenda with no strings attached. Is that what you mean?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 09:08
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:let's split the difference and say neoliberalism destroyed the working class as a socially coherent demographic block That's fine if you are willing to give a straight, honest answer to the inevitable follow up: "Which party are the neoliberals"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Sure. So in the end the message remains the same as it was before all the spin doctoring - gently caress politics.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:From a reply: Clintons are giant alien insects whose true bodies (not the artificial humanoid avatars) are sustained by a constant flow of human carcasses. As their malice grows, so does their appetite, and they can't be satisfied with what natural mortality would provide. They need factory prisons, wars, police brutality... to keep them nourished and growing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 18:26
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:It's the right stance to have for people that want to follow their faith. I'm fine with it, and the Democratic party should be as well. That's right, and you should use this argument to highlight when bad dems make exceptions from this maxim to take hypocritical potshots at their internal rivals. It would be very stupid to tactfully look away from the past mistakes of competing politicians when their allies highlight the very same failings on your side and show themselves to be incapable of self-reflection. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 08:03 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 07:57
|
|
|
Because NATURALLY a politician is going to be taken care of by special interests, it can't be avoided. That's just how things are, and best we can do is some hand wringing over it. Just move on and pretend that your resignation on ethics is a sign of maturity rather than of weakness.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 08:33
|
|
|
The point of the "is made of carbon" quip is that it's not hypocritical for people not to immediately defy the inevitable, and that which is forced upon them by forces much more powerful than them, like natural laws. So by using this as an argument, you are essentially saying that Obama has no say in accepting money from special interests, he is just a man, a poor ragdoll kicked around by much more powerful forces he can't reasonably resist. Which is the default defense of all people caught in corruption scandals, a denial of one's own agency to be stripped of responsibility for questionable actions. Sadly one needs to have agency to (selectively) reject having agency - if the person in question was incapable of making decisions all along, he should have been locked up in an asylum, not elected to lead a country.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
I love this idea that by taking scraps from companies with multibillion valuations, politicians are fleecing them. That is such a disgustingly transparent lie. What Obama and his peers do instead is set up an example - that if you play by the rules, if you protect the right interests, you are going to get a taste of the good life, you are going to be given a life of luxury and rubbing elbows with celebrities and elites. It normalizes the integration of politics and corporations, it erases the distinction and frames political office as an intermediary stepping stone in a broader career path, which often begins with corporate advocacy jobs, and ends with corporate advocacy jobs It erases the notion that the goal is to serve people, to represent people, and turns representation merely into a necessary tool that must be utilized in protecting particular interests - democracy becomes a part of corporate operations, securing votes through political operatives embedded in the corporate world just an necessary operating expense. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 08:50 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 08:48
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:
You are either incredibly naive, or incredibly complacent within the framework of corporate sponsored politics. The point is that yes, that money, or any other money donated by wealthy sponsors, is not spent to fund anti-DNC activities, but that is because political parties, through the deep, deep professional and institutional linkages between politics and business, are corporate instruments. Instead that money is used to fund anti-public activities, aka the integration of private business and the public sphere. BTW, just because it's a forums joke doesn't mean it isn't a really lovely argument. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 09:10 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 08:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 18:36 |
|
|
If somebody enters politics with the knowledge that they will eventually take a career step up to sit on boards of banks and hedge funds and raise funds for them etc., then yes, they are corrupted by money in politics. If parties are chaired by people with that mindset, who then pick like minded subordinates to smooth out their career, then yes, parties are corrupted by money in politics. If politicians take advice from retired colleagues who have transitioned to corporate jobs, and even use them as representatives of their party, then they are corrupted by money in politics. If politicians pick their official team members from among corporate executives with whom they worked before attaining an office, then they are corrupted by money in politics.
steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 09:03 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 08:59
|
|