|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Democrazy posted:Are you saying that the attack on Hillary Clinton on Donald Trump were not motivated by sexism and that agreeing with them isn't agreeing with a sexist sentiment? Is that your Honest-to-God stance? He is saying that Hillary failed to appear like a human being compared to a brash, loud serial liar caricature of capitalist excess. And he's right. Trump at least has a huckster's gift for saying whatever the rubes want to hear, b it war, peace, jobs, family, tradition, whatever. Hillary simply assumed her spiel about 21st century skills and 'they go low, we go high' was what the masses were craving, and we all paid the price. It wasn't just her, to be honest, as there was a whole machine and philosophy behind the campaign, but she still embodied it.
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
yronic heroism posted:Probably, since the crybabbies of this thread are not representative of the democratic electorate. Yes, since they are part of a -growing- trend. Liberals enjoy going on about how demographics will swing balance toward the Democratic party any day now (won't happen), and how the GOP base is too old and will start dying off fast, but there is a severely under reported current of progressives who are pissed off at the status quo and frustrated that the party still pretends to believe in the DC culture of playing nice and pretending the institutions are not rotten.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Do you really not understand how ridiculous this attitude is? You could say this same stuff about literally any political movement prior to the point where its success was imminent. Like, you could use the same "heh last I checked you haven't already accomplished your goal This. It's weird how 'moderates' seem to swing between "Leftist goals are impossible to attain so we shouldn't try" and "Well, you guys haven't brought about single-payer yet, I see no reason to back you!" when they drop by here. But it's not nearly as annoying as those who peek in, spew poo poo, then go "Well, enjoy your echo chamber, losers!" when called out on their poo poo, then hiss at you if you bring up any actual leftist alternative to policy in the 'good' thread. "Go back to the bad thread! I know we are talking about DACA/Kamala/Arpaio, but I'll call you a bernout anyway!"
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2017 01:45
|
|
" logic against abolitionists in the 1820s or something.
|
Just to keep us from getting too happy about the GOP being punked for a change, some dem had to give in to his natural urges. http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/daniel-biss-carlos-ramirez-rosa-illinois-governor-442930773.html Supporting BDS is the one punishable sin in centrist politics, it seems.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:It's bizarre how you guys will sulk about everything. So progressive pressure got Harris, a front-runner for 2020 Dem candidate, to endorse single payer and this is a bad thing because? Making pleasant noises is easy. Can you blame us for being wary? If her commitment is real and lasts, more power to her and I hope others follow in her footsteps. But Obama also promised the world in his speeches, from a public option and cracking down on Wall Street to closing Guatanamo, and basically shrugged off that persona before he warmed the chair in the oval office. Being skeptical of politicians is a -good- thing. Do you go inside the windowless van of every guy on the street that offers you candy?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 03:22
|
|
|
OtherworldlyInvader posted:The public option was in the ACA and Obama fought to keep it in, but ultimately it was killed by the conservative democrats in Congress because they were afraid they'd lose their seats if they voted for big gubmint socialism. Those conservative dems were subsequently massacred in the midterms by Tea Party Republicans. Agreed on Guantanamo. I'll say that there were a few venues he could have tried, but they would have costed 'political capital' and made him 'open to attack'. I'd argue that when you are already being attacked for the sin of liking grey poupon mustard, you might as well not bother play that foolish game, but eh. About the ACA, though? No. No way. He gave up all the good parts quickly, included tons of pork to please some of the sleaziest pols outside of a Scorcese movie, and then when Kennedy croaked and he came up short anyway he did nothing to improve the bill once reconciliation was inevitable. He didn't even wind back all the loony changes republicans made to the bill in exchange for the grand total of 0 votes in return. Hell, he is on the record during the campaign joking about the idea of an individual mandate being absurd, saying that we might as well pass a law mandating homeless people to buy a house if that was a thing. That, and him offering to sign away half of the surviving welfare state for a budget that was likely going to be overturned in a few years, show that Obama's endless compromises are not strategic. They are part of his values, aiming to shore up the consensus instead of actually solving issues.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:TNC's refusal to prescribe a way forward frustrates me too, but that's on me, not him. Agreed. I enjoy his writing and insight a lot. Some people can both point out the disease AND prescribe the right treatment. But that doesn't mean you can just ignore someone who can give you an amazingly clear X-ray of the affected area. Yeah, I'm in med school. My analogies have no creativity.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:So the 'opposite problem' is happening? The opposite of 'Demanding that minorities sign up for the class war and then blowing off their problems with regards to white supremacy and patriarchy' would be 'Demanding that whites sign up for the race war and then blowing off their problems with regards to economics'. Eoconomic empowerment is still empowerment, and I can tell you from firsthand experience that at least my minority group cares deeply about it. It also amplifies your voice in society and makes it easier to fight for other gains; far easier to ignore a bunch of broke nobodies than people that suddenly have cash and representation (which sadly derives from cash). Of course, ideally we should do both things. But ask a minority on the street if he'd like a bigger paycheck and/or NHS-level healthcare or have a politician tweet a support message to his peeps and maybe pass a law making October 5 Wogdom Appreciation Day (which is usually what 'support' amounts to), I think I know how that coin will land.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Putting Obama and Trump side by side does a great job illustrating the hero worship and authoritarianism that seems almost ubiquitous in this country's political paradigm. Persona will always supersede policy for a not insignificant number of Americans, no matter how obvious or painful the betrayal. Very true. Kennedy, Reagan and Obama are the modern trio of presidents that show how you can fully detach image from reality and still be able to have a political machine built around you. I'll never stop being amazed at the number of otherwise smart people who tell me "Kennedy was a peacenik, he was totally going to pull out of Vietnam!". About one third of the time, that is followed by "...and that is why he was killed!", and by that point they are no longer in the smart people folder.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Presented for your consideration: https://twitter.com/Newyorkist/status/888936744095272960
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yeah, it's pretty hosed that there still are people ITT who are so deep into the bad dem cult that they don't see the problem with supporting the goddamn Tories under any circumstances whatsoever. Well, think of how many 'reasonable' op-eds and talks they would be able to give if the UK dismantled their public health structure. "See, even the brits can't keep the NHS going! It's impossible, impossible I tell you!" Hell, it'd likely send a wave of priapism through DC from David Brooks to Jamie Kirchik.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 07:14
|
|
|
Marxalot posted:
I don't think she will run. It's still years away, even part of the establishment will have moved on, she'll be older and remember what a trial the last campaign was. That said, I believe she will try to be a King/Queenmaker and be very active in trying to influence who is the candidate and what policies get the spotlight. There are some signs when a politician has had enough and is ready to just retire and pick a humanitarian cause to pursue in he background, and she's showing none of them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Beaten. But yeah, people were quite pissed at the first Tweet, with Bill Corbett from MST#K/Rifftrax taking on the role of chief grumbler, and apparently it had an effect. Since he's not going to run for re-election, might as well spend the time he has left actually, you know, pushing for worthwhile stuff! ...poo poo, now it's like even I think my politics are electoral poison.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:Like god drat it's a loving Senate seat and the alternative is literally Christian ISIS. True, but think how many serfs will feel emboldened and start -demanding- things from their enlightened representatives if they start winning. It's just so gauche. There's a Chait column about it somewhere, I'm sure.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
D.N. Nation posted:"apparently" Yeah, 'apparently'. I can't read Franken's mind. Maybe really cares about this and just needed a push. Maybe he doesn't give a crap but doesn't want to be seen as a stick in the mud as support grows. Maybe he flipped a coin.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
Any form of political engagement beyond donating money, retweeting soundbites and wearing t-shirts (if you are REALLY out there) is just impractical radicalism and just doesn't jive with our perfect system!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I think it's a good thing that Hillary is doubling down on and confirming our worst suspicions about her political positions. Eh. The thing is, we were going to get poo poo onto no matter what she did. If she had come out strong in favor of, say, voting rights, against gerrymandering or police violence, they were going to go "See! She's so nice and well-intentioned, and YOU kept her out of the White House, leftist!". Now that she's gone into not-my-fault rant mode, it incenses her more hardcore supporters into a further split and gives more fuel to the Jamie Kirchiks of the world. I remember even making a post about it in the main thread a month or so before the election about how progressives were doomed (in the Democratic party) either way: If Hillary won, she would happily purge the party structure of anything (and anyone) resembling Bernie's politics and support. And if she lost, they would be the ones to carry the blame. But everyone was too busy hailing the inevitable coming of Dread Abuela.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2017 06:57
|
|