|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:he had to lock the last thread as his veil of leftism rather than fygm was uncovered a bit. It's almost like he's trying to influence elections in favor of the other party.
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
mcmagic posted:Even if 2018 is a wave and the dems take the house they are still going to lose most districts like Kansas 4. Clearly what happened with this one election tells us everything we need to know about Tom Perez forever.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
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? I argued that it wasn't a big deal that Perez got selected over Ellison. Unless you have some sort of evidence that Ellison as chair, rather than his current position as deputy chair, would have won this race, I don't see any reason to recant. Why should anyone recant support of Perez because some of you disagree with a single decision he made?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Centrists trying to handwave that away as "just the way political realignment goes" is really distasteful to me. Where is this happening? Obviously there's way more to it than that. We can definitely take those states back, we just need a candidate that excites voters. And visits them. Kilroy posted:Apparently the 50-state strategy doesn't include red states. If money was not spent in Kansas now, but is spent in Kansas later, does the strategy include Kansas?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:...is it? I would think by definition moderate dems and moderate republicans would be fairly close, possibly even overlap based on local politics.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Texas and Arizona were talked about, but California is where most people agree she overspent. I recall specific discussion of LA, for example. But you can find a post or two saying just about anything, who you noticed saying what in x thread is a really useless anecdote.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
Mister Facetious posted:Did Romney ever refer to blacks as "super predators"? There's so much irony in you pretending to support black people while calling them "blacks". Also in pretending to support black people while still trying to bring up the super predators thing.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
AstheWorldWorlds posted:Hello Massachusetts buddy. I agree the dem party of Massachusetts are useless, with some dems floating amendments to the bill ranging from contradictory (six plants but only two ounces of flower per household), to pure "what the gently caress" such as raising the legal age to 25 for cannabis products. I'm pretty sure there's some science behind this, even if it doesn't fit into our normal scheme of adulthood rights.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/19/15351888/panera-bread-ossoff It's like you want to the HFC of the left. Woops, two pages open at the same time. I am chagrined.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:"You know those people who have dragged the nation kicking and screaming towards their ideology for the last eight years despite being a tiny fraction of the political world? Who can hold any legislation in this country hostage to their demands?" Unironically this. Leftists don't get a pass on it just because I agree with them on things.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:The arguments being made here ARE dumb. There isn't discourse here that leads to anything other than tankies getting mad that they don't have full communism now. When you find yourself on the same side of an argument as people like NewForumSoftware, maybe you should stop and think if you are on the right side. Lol if you read NFS posts. WhiskeyJuvenile posted:sure, but the person making the criticism matters Exactly this. The same message coming from Bernie makes Trump seem credible to people who may have gotten out to vote against him otherwise. I'm not saying anyone can't or shouldn't criticize clinton, but "trump would have just said the same thing bernie did" isn't a very good argument. GlyphGryph posted:Counterpoint: Centrists (of the sort you are) are actually bad, and if we purged them from the party we could pull in more than enough of the moderates and independents (people the centrists drive away so effectively) to replace them. [citation needed] Also, just becuase he self identified as a centrist doesn't really mean he's the sort of person most people are talking about when they say "centrists should be purged from the party" and telling someone you want to purge them never makes you sound good.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:by proclaiming they deserve to be electrocuted for being gay for the crime of being outvoted by Republicans. They must have -chosen- to suffer, after all. This is an incredibly disgusting mischaracterization of what he said and you are a lovely fuckhead who should kill yourself IRL. Ze Pollack posted:And so we arrive at the blue-state centrist's core argument. Look at this sick gently caress supporting US military adventurism in foreign lands.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 23:34
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Real slap in the face to be reminded what the human cost of the democratic party abandoning red states is, ain't it. Is that what you think you are doing? Really? Should we support identity politician Democrats in Kansas who want equality of opportunity through the free market being genuinely fair to all persons? Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 00:56 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:[Chelsea Clinton] Someone convince her to move to a red state and help them get a functioning government again. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 01:03 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:Well, you're on record as saying no, gently caress 'em, better to leave Kansas bleeding than waste a dollar of Democratic money on the insufficiently morally pure and ungrateful masses. Where? You are lying. Ze Pollack posted:Remember, it was not the Blue Dogs who killed the public option. It was the Democratic Party refusing to strip any power from a Republican-in-all-but-name from a solid blue state, and Sensible Centrists deciding it wasn't worth their time to even try to force it by him. You mean the one who won as a third party independent? What exactly should they have done that would have gotten the public option? Extraordinary claims and all that shrike82 posted:Personal anecdote about the Dems being intertwined with the professional/technocrat class (and consequently lost their way with the working class) - 
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 01:52 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 01:43
|
|
|
Deadly Ham Sandwich posted:Democrats could have dared to get rid of the the filibuster and threatened to pass it without him, but apparently the filibuster is more sacred than millions of lives. That's certainly a new take I haven't heard. I'm not sure it's a great plan though. Please, persuade me. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 13:40
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Could we also have your comments on the above revalations for how the Clinton campaign was run? If you like. Clinton campaign dumb as gently caress. Still would have been better than president trump. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:IIRC, there were some states that required you to be a registered Democrat for months before the actual vote. Where such rules were in place, that definitely skewed things further toward Clinton. The alternative is letting Republicans choose the Democratic candidate. I think it's a fair advantage.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Majorian posted:"Neoliberalism" refers to economic policy, not reproductive rights or ideological heterodoxy. Lots of words have meanings, no one is actually bothering with any kind of rigor in their use in this thread though. Except maybe glyphgryp. edit- and obviously you. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Again, with JC telling Sanders voters here not to bother to vote for Abuela last year because she had in the bag, and people like Schumer talking about the white working class vote being irrelevant, it's hard to care about their stabbed in the back by leftists rhetoric now. Equating individual posters on an internet forum to actual politicians is insane and changing your vote because some poster annoyed you is loving stupid.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I still don't know why ridiculous speaking fees aren't considered a form of corruption, gently caress we would be roasting politicians in other countries if they did the same thing. In the US really try to believe in the fig leaves we place over a system that would be laughable otherwise. He's not a politician anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
Sorry, clearly since he took this money we should never vote him into elected office again. Is the truth somewhere in the middle? Like maybe he just took money because they offered it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 13:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Let's just walk this all the way to the logical conclusion then: should we even have campaign contribution limits at all? Or is money and prestige irrelevant and politicians just take what is offered without anyone involved expecting to get any advantages thereby. Agreed, clearly pure logic will solve this conundrum steinrokkan posted:If it is OK for him to take money now, when was the last day it was not OK? Jan 20? Jan 19? Jan 18? Day after the 2012 election? How long do you need to wait to cash in on your built up social network and personal capital (which you built while in office) to avoid suspicion? If you can suddenly do it the day after leaving office, why can't you do it in office, I guess just because it would be bad for the dignity of the state? You are right. Ex president's should be killed on leaving office to prevent their future corruption.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Hmm bad Dems are implying that their politicians are above normal human desires Where's that happening? Making money is a pretty normal human desire. Once his term is over his decisions are made. You can go on and on about how those decisions must have been influenced by the money he just got, but if he hadn't accepted that money those decisions don't retroactively change. So, turns out Obama was never a true leftist. Shock. Horror. Or he was but he took money anyway. What are you gonna do, vote for a Republican about it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 13:58
|
|
|
twodot posted:I'm not personally going to vote Republican about it, but if the Democrats consistently cast themselves as the party of the wealthy and powerful then other people might vote Republican about it, I don't think we can hold the former president's personal life accountable to every idiot who gets huffy about what he does after office, nor should he. readingatwork posted:Conversations like this are why the Democrats are currently less popular than Trump. At least he pretends that corruption is a bad thing.  corruption
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Poor little president, being subject to the mildest possible form of public scrutiny. poor innocent face of one of two political parties being held by the public to a standard of conduct so low it takes effort to sneak below it. There isn't a big enough rolleyes emote in the world for how dumb this is. Only the whiney leftists in this thread seem to care, and a bunch of people who go "but we can't let the leftists be sad, trump won" Mister Fister posted:Implying we're not allowed to feel upset corruption when Democrats do it. Implying that anyone calling this corruption is a big ol loving moron
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Either "whiny leftists" are 47 percent of Democrats, 67 percent of Independents, and 64 percent of the electorate overall (in which case holy poo poo we need to do what they want or never win again), or a lot of people outside the Whiny Left™ care about it (in which case holy poo poo why are we pissing off 64% of the entire electorate for no benefit?) This seems to be about HRC. but then your link doesn't work so I can't be sure.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 14:27
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Just pragmatically speaking Nevvy Z: could you describe the counterbalancing benefits we receive from accepting Wall Street paydays that look so untrustworthy to half our party and two-thirds of independents that they refuse to take us at our word and demand transcripts of our speeches? Wait is corruption why Trump won now?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Let's assume a fantastically unpopular action by a candidate may have played a role in a narrow loss. Anyone who changes their voting pattern based on what a former president did when he left office is an idiot and I don't think former presidents should have to hold themselves accountable to every idiot in their party regardless of how those idiots may feel about it's impact on past or future elections. Anyone who sees this and say "yes, evidence that he was corrupt the entire time" already thought that, or should have if they were paying any attention.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:Obama should just take money from Blackwater (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) and Putin because why the gently caress not. Agreed. And you should totally make a big deal about it when he runs for president.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:You still didn't answer the question that's been posed a few times. Mainly, what's the actual benefit What's the actual benefit of receiving half a million dollars for a few hours work?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:There's a monetary benefit to the individual, which is the only benefit that matters. The idea of trying to benefit a group of people is just naive. This is a lot of snark with no substance.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The last time this happened 47% of Democrats were suspicious enough that they refused to trust the candidate's word about her speeches. I strongly support BHO releasing a transcript of this speech before he runs for office. Cerebral Bore posted:All that your ilk is doing here is pissing and moaning because people ITT think that their ostensible political representatives should be held accountable, which apparently is bad and equal to apathy for some reason. Like, I know that you just want to be contrarian, but come the gently caress on. Ah yes. My political representative BHO.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:If you weren't talking about a serious matter, your trolling would be funny. The classic, "you disagree with me so you must be trolling." Truly a powerful argument.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:He's trying to do you a kindness, rather than assume you're a fuckin' idiot. You knowers of absolute truth do a lowly wretch such as me great kindness for daring to differ in thoughts and feelings.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 15:11
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:"Thoughts" is a bit strong for what you've been posting. You're literally arguing that half the electorate should be ignored so that politicians can enrich themselves. It's idiotic No, I'm only arguing that the bolded portion is completely ridiculous as are the hot takes on this issue from most of this thread. But if I dare suggest that a leftist is overreacting I become a centrist. Which definition of centrist? No really, is centrism a stance or is it just not being leftist enough for the thread?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Yes, I agree that it's ridiculous that someone would say that we should ignore half the electorate Who said that? I think you misunderstood my post, the ridiculous thing is you and your insistence on misinterpreting "i think you are being ridiculous" as "no one cares what half the electorate thinks". You are not half the electorate, nor do you have some special insight into them. Dizz posted:both sides are equally lovely  Comedy option, that's racist.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 15:32
|
|
|
Fansy posted:Why is a financial services firm paying Obama half a mil to talk? Probably not, he's not a very good speaker. Vitalsigns, I don't think the data you are using is relevant at all for what should be obvious reasons. I do appreciate that you found the right link eventually I think (the last one I saw was about emails after the first time it was fixed) but the fact is that he's not a candidate for anything an this thread seems to expect him to act like he's one. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Apr 26, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Nevvy, do you give people in your personal life the same insane level of benefit of the doubt? About what? I unironically can't wait to see how ridiculous these comparisons will be. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 6, 2024 01:15 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No you see morally pure former presidents and their families all take vows of poverty and follow the Rule of Benedict. But don't you know that everyone who didn't vote didn't vote because Hilary took money from big banks? How will Obama ever be president again after this
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 17:01
|
|