|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Fiction posted:Aren't you a landlord who took pride in evicting a homeless person? I think we all know why you want socialist revolution to be a "pipe dream." Mark Twain posted:There were two 'Reigns of Terror', if we could but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passions, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon a thousand persons, the other upon a hundred million; but our shudders are all for the "horrors of the... momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty and heartbreak? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief terror that we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror - that unspeakable bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
The "sweat shops are a Reasonable Thing and if you don't like them you are the real racist" stuff is why I'm not super confident that Democrats like Hillary actually really care much about social issues which require any sort of sacrifice on the part of privileged people or industry profits. You can also see this in her statement on the DAPL where instead of supporting the Native Americans and protesters being attacked and mutilated she put out a tepid "let's all be nice and make sure everyone is safe" statement as if the two sides were in any way equivalent in use of violence. Even when her friend asked her to stand up for gay marriage in 2008 it was too much since she had to consider the "family values" people so we couldn't get ahead of the public on that civil right. I mean yeah that's better than the GOP that actively want to return to their halcyon days of pre-Civil War America but that's a really low bar to set as the standard. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:21 on May 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Senate Democrats are currently having a press conference on That's cool.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
I remember around when the economy started to get lovely in the early 2000s and the news were putting up interviews with local businesses that were complaining they HAD to use illegal immigrants because American citizen labor was too expensive. Like I'm supposed to feel bad that not only will you not pay Americans a decent wage, but you hire people that you can pay less than minimum under the table? Businesses like that deserve to go under, especially if the owner isn't taking to lowest possible salary he or she can. It's hard for me to believe the idea of "well we just CAN'T pay these people $15 an hour" if they themselves are making a lot more than that in profits.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:06 on May 19, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 19, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Centrists have been using "full communism now" as a sarcastic insult to economic leftists for so long that they've forgotten it was supposed to be sarcastic and really believe that anyone left of Hillary is some sort of super commie at this point. LOL at the idea that socialized medicare and $15 an hour minimum wage are some sort of Bolshevik revolution.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 13:22
|
|
|
I find the notion of a higher minimum wage being "taken" from the owners pretty offensive in light of how much money has been robbed from everyone else for decades.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
I think that's important. President Trump isn't some wacky thing that we accidentally stumbled into. A fascist Republican leader was an inevitability as cost of living increased, wages don't keep up, retirement, health care, and building a family become a "privilege" for a select few, and both political parties are either complicit in or not really willing to combat the extremist white supremacy that is taking rise in areas of the country (or never actually went away). Our current system created this monster and will make another if things just chug along after he's ousted without addressing anything and the next one won't be so stupid as to kick off his administration by starting a two front front war against the media and intelligence agencies. A Democrat that gets elected in 2020 and governs in the same way Obama did will not solve anything other than punting the can for four to eight years and someone that's really able to take advantage of our garbage system that appears to be designed to allow people to act illegally without consequences takes over.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Seriously what the gently caress. https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/868179588056326144 Democrats really do value politeness over actual results of any kind, not that her campaign was actually not angry.
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
I don't get the Booker/Kushner thing. Like every Democrat hates everyone associated with the Trumps from the Berniebros to the Hillbots. If he's trying to be the serious bipartisan guy waiting for all the facts there's probably better people to defend than the idiot son in law that shouldn't have gotten clearance in the first place. It's not like Republicans are going to respect that. Like it seems like a move designed to piss off as many people as possible.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Maybe he's just a true believer in plutocracy. Everyone that has gone to bat for Trump and his cronies has either gotten hosed in some way or taken some political damage even if it's not immediately impactful (Paul Ryan being shunned by middle schoolers and such) so it would be funny if that's the thing that Booker decided he was willing to gamble his image on knowing this.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2017 14:32
|
|
|
Maggie's just trying to get people to forget her poo poo level coverage of the campaign.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 14:30
|
|
|
To be fair other than that dumb "Cambridge Analytica were geniuses!" talking point that was floating around for about a week not too many people have pushed that Trump's campaign was highly competent.Ego-bot posted:Resistance update: Hahaha
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Oh my god everyone involved in the Hillary campaign should be exiled to political Siberia. The Democratic party doesn't give a poo poo about winning elections or whatever just how much they can desperately try to be the slightly less racist Republicans. We are going to get so hosed because the supposed opposition is going to enact political malpractice again. It's one thing to not go hard left or whatever but shooting for these mythical not-shitbag Republicans a-loving-gain it's maddening.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
This kind of adds to my feeling that Democrats have stopped caring about anything other than the presidency and then just accomplish everything via EOs and hope that nationally they didn't get kicked out. It probably would have actually worked if it wasn't for the Electoral College.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2017 12:18
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:In case people were still wondering why Democrats pretend corbyn doesn't exist, Obama's campaign manager was a lead on May's campaign. And he's great at predictions: How can someone be this much of a piece of poo poo? American dude talking about May's bright vision while she is trying to gently caress with the NHS and saying the British have too many civil rights. I hope he never comes back. I'm sick of Obama and all his friends. At least his twitter feed is almost entirely people calling him a sack of garbage.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2017 23:44
|
|
|
Based on May and the Tory's longstanding racism, their alliance with the BNP, and now their partnership with anti-LGBT politicians that's all we really need to know how incredibly committed they are to the social side of leftism. Kilroy was right when he said that Democrats literally stand for nothing except I guess for watered down economic conservatism. I'm becoming increasingly convinced they will intentionally let Trump win again regardless over what minorities he screws over or government programs he scraps since the alternative of someone to the left of Cory Booker is worse for them and everyone else be damned. The leadership of the party needs to be gutted but they would rather the country burn than lose any power or money.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
We are so hosed. I think the best we can hope for is a wave election in 2020 and then three Justices immediately croak before the Republicans take back the Senate in 2022 and the Presidency in 2224. The Democrats will be singing while 23 million people die.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 11:38
|
|
|
That war has become normalized and will just be the state of things forever until America collapses under itself.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
Ornedan posted:Bernie's campaign apparently didn't spot it either. Balls dropped all around. Even if they had seen it there was no way they were going to use it. Despite while the Hillary and her super fans think Bernie wasn't trying to destroy her and the party by running in a primary election that the party had already decided the winner for.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:While, of course, Bernie Would Have Won, it is also important at all times to recognize that he launched his campaign expecting to be home by November at the latest, having made his grumpy last-minute bid to remind America the Left still existed en route to Hillary's coronation. Bernie doing as well as he did should have really been the point where people inside the Clinton campaign started panicking and changing course.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
If you have to have a "well it's not TECHNICALLY slavery" conversation about your candidate then maybe uh that candidate wasn't that great in retrospect. Like we had to wring our hands that Sanders made some leftist pro Iran comments years ago but somehow Clinton and her multitudes of gaffs and blattant flip flopping depending on the current political winds weren't an issue that mattered at all. I bought into the Clinton is actually Electable stuff as much as a lot of people since she had so much party support while preferring Sanders in the primaries. However 2016 (and 2008 frankly) should be a lesson that Clintonian smears and worrying about some centrist optics are a waste of time since the country doesn't give a poo poo and what matters is charisma and if it looks like the person cares about accomplishing something. Lesser of two evilism has hosed us pretty bad since you can only shame people for so long and it doesn't even work at all on the people that aren't leftists which you need in order to win elections. Like you don't have this absurd poo poo on the Republican side where they yell at their voters and blame them for not believing in the candidates enough. Voting for the lesser of two evils makes sense in a once in a while dire situation, but when you make it the soul of your party, that you are only going to put up lame or actively bad candidates and point at how much worse the other guys are it's just going to lead to failure in the long term as we are clearly seeing now. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:35 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 13:18
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you'll find that hillary still believes she should be a leader of the dem party (and is quite miffed that she isn't seen as a central #resistance figure), and there are a good number of dems who will happily give her power despite her issues. therefore, worrying about her policies is pretty relevant. hth Now that she's started to piss off DNC members by adding them to the list of traitors I'm less worried about her influence specifically. She should still be the poster child for how to lose an election though so I think it's important to examine her campaign for what not to do in 2018 and 2020.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
If the Dem playbook currently consists of plans that are basically "Let the Republicans run wild loving over everyone and then pick up the pieces but not really fix anything major every 4-8 years until they get back into power and do it again" I think we can do better as a party. The whole idea of criticism being a way of weakening the party only makes sense if the party is just that pathetic that any sort of negativity is enough to topple it. Clintonites saying that Bernie even running was a fundamental threat to her presidency was admitting she was a bad candidate that couldn't stand up to the most tepid of opposition. The point of a political party is to do what the voters want, not to set a Serious platform that your financial backers and friends want and then complain when people aren't sufficiently excited about it and are the real traitors for not being faithful. At least the Republicans throw red meat to their base while they are loving them over. They are so hosed as a party right now they should be desperately trying to find what voters want and how to related to them, not singing songs about how the Republicans are screwing themselves and that they'll win by default. If they get in on some anti-Trump wave they will have to actually do something or we will be in exactly this same spot but without the benefit of a fascist idiot who can't help but self-own himself every day. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Jun 16, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Where was this said? I don't doubt its authenticity, I'd just like to be able to cite it in future discussions. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/nancy-pelosi-town-hall-capitalism_us_58925a53e4b070cf8b807e28 It's not QUITE as bad as the quote makes it but it's pretty much trying to appeal to everyone in typical Democrat fashion while pleasing no one like when Hillary said everyone at the DAPL protests needed to come together and be safe. Pelosi is really bad at dealing with questions she isn't prepared for (this one apparently snuck through and wasn't supposed to be asked) like when she said Obama and Hillary were the standard bearers of the party after the 2016 election. In regards to Russia I think a lot of it is that the Democrats feel deeply insulted by the Russians clowning them in such a way that all Americans should really be concerned with and are taking it up as a matter of honor. The issue is that I don't think it's something the average non-Democrat really cares about and won't win any elections for them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 12:55
|
|
|
Democrats have almost no power so them not working on making a extensive bill isn't that crazy right now. However Diane Feinstein still kissing medical industry rear end and Democrats ignoring the way the winds of their voters are blowing is a much bigger problem. The AHCA isn't out yet and no one knows what's in it but after it passes they need a message and a solution since people have clearly gotten tired of supporting them as the lesser of two evils. Simply going back to the ACA isn't going to work, especially when it can be totally dismantled so easily by both the SCOTUS and any Republican congresses.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
twodot posted:Why isn't it crazy? They are still getting paid, they are still getting a staff. Why not expect them to do their job? I realize it won't pass right now, but if nothing else it's a cost cutting measure to write a bill this fiscal year and pass it in another. The only reason for professional politicians to not be working on this stuff is because they don't care when or if it happens. I think it's a better use of their time to campaign loudly on pie in the sky promises and then work out the details when they get into power. A real bill isn't going to really matter since no one gives a poo poo about what's actually technically in it, only how politician's decisions are going to theoretically affect them. The single payer bill they have now (if they get over themselves and rally on it instead of allowing conservative dems to oppose it) is probably just as good as something much more complicated for the purposes of getting elected in order to enact it. I'm holding out for after the AHCA passes to see if they do that because I think that if they go into 2018 and 2020 without a firm stance on providing medical care they are going to lose big regardless of how unpopular Trump is. Unless something insane happens that is going to be the biggest issue and they can't try and ask voters to read their websites about what they are going to do because they don't want to offend their lobbyists and expect to not get smoked. Unbelievably Fat Man posted:It shows how disdainful the right wing Democrats are of their voters that they won't even bother to grandstand pointlessly in a situation where they have literally nothing to lose. Yeah seriously. The fact that Booker couldn't even bring himself for a meaningless yes vote against the medical industry on something that didn't even need him to fight against is pretty telling. The lack of Democratic enthusiam is something entirely of their own making and blaming voters is a bullshit way to allow them to continue being junk.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
twodot posted:This is literally hundreds of people's full time job, I don't understand why they can't do both. "Oh, I'd love to deliver some concrete policy proposals, but I'm all tired out from tweeting"? Fair enough I just don't think it really matters that much in terms of getting elected. I'm personally more interested in them starting to actively campaign for single payer since in American politics words mean more than actions and the media is trash that wouldn't report on a boring bill while Trump makes an rear end of himself for the thousandth time; they are having trouble even getting to that level but if they wrote up real legislation it wouldn't be a bad thing. Of course if they talk a big game about it, don't write up the laws, and then suddenly can't start on it because they don't have 60 Senate seats or some such lame excuse then gently caress them. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:How many times do the Democrats have to say "We are not progressives and do not support progressive causes" before people stop blaming Republicans for Democrats failing to pass progressive legislation? The Republicans are kinda loving them right now since they are showing how easy it is to just push through stuff no matter how unpopular it is if you are united as a party in regards to a goal. Now that goal is "gently caress over everyone for upper class tax cuts" but it's becoming clear that there was little actually stopping the Democrats from doing more under the Obama presidency other than themselves and the line they needed 60 senators to do anything was a lie.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
The reason that things require 60 votes is because of Senate rules that could have been changed. Changing the Senate rules so that you couldn't hold up votes indefinitely as the minority party and then using the nuclear option to force cloture when the Republicans predictably would filibuster those changes wouldn't have mattered to any Democratic voter outside of political wonks and politicians and certainly isn't "undermining the union and destroying democratic structures." Once it became clear the Republicans were not interested in governing in good faith there was no reason to allow that to continue. The Republicans faced no sort of retribution for abusing the SCOTUS nomination procedure since they won and Senate rules that aren't even constitutional aren't worth keeping around if they are only there to hamper Democratic legislation. Like there was some absurd notion that the Republicans would respect the filibuster so it had to be kept in case the Senate flipped or that everyone in that branch of government respected the process, and then they immediately use the nuclear option in 2017. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Jun 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2017 19:27
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:It's really depressing to see a few voices in the main Trump thread going "Hey, Dems are not looking like they have a coherent strategy going forward, maybe we should be concerned" and the response to be "Go to the dems are a waste thread and stop interrupting." Did the "post the map" idiots from the 2016 election thread massacre re-reg or are those new people that just came out of a pre-WW2 bomb shelter in 2017?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
Who knows how good it will be but at least they are aware they need to message on that instead of thinking that Serious and Responsible conservative policies combined with Russia is the way to getting Democrats elected. Obama in 2007 was saying he was going to march with people on strike not saying he was going to look the other way as banks repossessed people's houses since that was the hard sacrifice we (by we I mean everyone not in power) had to make to not let the economy collapse. I can understand the idea of elect-ability over ideologically perfect candidates but when those compromised candidates can't even get their asses into seats then it's time to shake things up in one way or another (lol go further right and yell at third party voters more).
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Jul 20, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nitpick: Hillary won Tim Kaine's home state of Virginia As a Virginian I don't think that he mattered either way. It was super close (the state is getting more and more blue but who knows if that will continue in Trump's America) and I don't know a single person that gave a poo poo about Kaine. He was a lame pick unless there's some actual real data I haven't seen reported. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Jul 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
B B posted:Virginia actually wasn't really any closer than the previous two presidential elections. Clinton beat Obama's 2012 performance in both votes and the spread; Obama got a much higher percentage in 2008, but that was a wave election. Trump did even worse than Romney. I think "Trump's really not that popular they just hate Clinton more" sums up a good amount of the 2016 election. That's cool about the spread since I went to bed before they finished counting NoVa as it was lost at that point. Go Virginia.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
I have to admit I have a perverse joy in occasionally looking up Jim Messina's anti-Trump tweets and seeing the only replies being people telling him to shut the gently caress up since he's traitorous scum. That guy shouldn't be able to walk around in public without tomatoes being hurled at him.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 15:20
|
|
|
It's also amusing when people throw out the "Bernie lost the Democratic primary how good could he be??" when the Democratic primary has chosen one winner in two decades and also Clinton lost it too and was then rewarded with a fantastically expensive campaign eight years later.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Avirosb posted:But that doesn't answer how good he could be. So? Maybe he'll lose fantastically but the Democratic primary is the last thing people should be using as the barometer for winning a national election.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
I said that the Democrats would start to bargain away their "social liberal" values the first time they thought it was a pragmatic way to win an election without actually changing any policies people want them to. I didn't think it would be so soon after 2016 and not throwing women under the bus first but they are only going to go farther socially right as they continue to get trounced in elections. More and more people will be called traitors until there's only a bunch of rich white men left complaining everyone else isn't sufficiently loyal. "I'm fiscally conservative but socially liberal" ALWAYS ends up sacrificing the socially liberal part when money is at stake. Just look at Hillary's "support" for the Standing Rock protests. They are also stupid as hell since "pro-life" isn't about saving babies or stopping abortions it's about punishing women so until they can be actively misogynist in their messaging they aren't going to pull anyone away from the GOP but they sure as gently caress are going to lose their credibility with a lot of people that do understand. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Jul 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Even if any of the 'BernieBro' strawman actually existed, they'd still be better and more reliable allies for social justice than establishment Democrats have proven to be. Seriously. All of the complaining about these Bernie bro strawmen but the centrist Democrat allies by their own messaging are willing to make pragmatic choices (translation do what conservatives want) to win elections. It was only a matter of time before the moved from the economic part to the social. This needs to be denounced strongly by everyone in the party or it's going to end up being really damaging.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2017 17:52
|
|
|
On twitter yesterday I saw a self professed "ally" of Trans people tell Chelsea Manning that she should be grateful for the left's support of her being out of jail and that she should be careful not to lose it by being critical of Harris. Between that and the hinting at being open to anti-choice candidates by 2020 I half expect Democrats to be supporting Sessions removing affirmative action.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Aug 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2017 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
Condiv posted:the hillary crew demands fealty to the wishes of the unelected Dem leadership, or you're the most evil person on earth There's this weird (and gross) level of conditional alliance with disadvantaged people that some of these guys have. Like they are doing them a favor by supporting their human rights which can be retracted at any time if insufficient loyalty is shown or if it's no longer pragmatic to do so. It kinda gets back to how leftists are always to blame for Democratic losses. There's always someone else at fault and it's never the party leadership which has the ability to change platforms or message, it's always voters backstabbing them or minority groups not knowing what's best for themselves. I'm already seeing female leftists being told they are being sexist if they don't support Harris which is the laziest of attack angles and isn't going to work in 2020 any better than it worked in 2016. I just have to hope those kinds of lovely Democrats aren't as big a fraction of the voters as they would like everyone to believe. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Aug 2, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2017 13:54
|
|