|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I think you might be right. I was using as a blanket term to cover the political middle ground between parties. Why assume that Trump's victory was thanks to the middle breaking for him, instead of the same people who voted for McCain and Romney voting for him, and the people who voted for Obama deciding to stay home? Recall what we know about voter turnout in this election; down across the board for Democrats, about the same for Republicans.
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Sure dude, because that something that happened Remember that time you said voting against even signaling cheaper drugs for poor people was a good idea for Democrats because Cory Booker did it It was kind of embarrassing tbh
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:When did i say it was good, or that democrats should do it. quote:So wanting safe imported drugs is a bad thing now, got it. Do you guys see centrist monsters under your bed? What kind of grotesque, non-centrist monster would vote for legislation to make drugs cheaper.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 22:11
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:That doesn't indicate I think it was good, just that it is his position, and that it wasn't as terrible as it was being made out to be. Considering the bill idnt pass, and was never going to, it doesn't really matter what amendments were voted on. I feel like its the equivalent of arguing over deck chairs on the titanic. That bill wouldn't have made drugs cheaper anyway as it was completely symbolic, and again, wasn't going to pass. And so, we circle back around to the question you shied away from answering. Why did the man who offered hope and change to people do so much better than the woman who offered them nothing? That you do not consider spitting on the poor to be bad policy is understandable, but consider that given recent events there's evidence suggesting it's bad strategy.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:God drat you sure are sanctimonious about positions I don't have. I wonder if that has as much of an effect of driving people away from your positions as much as you think my beliefs do. Dear me, someone treating you with less respect than you feel you're due. How upsetting that must be. Obama offered a vision of the government being a force for good for people. The same people you introduced yourself to the thread 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. Hillary Clinton, Cory Booker, and you, personally, here and now, offer a "pragmatic," "centrist" vision of helping people being a waste of the Democratic Party's time and energy. For some reason, this strategy resulted in people who had voted for Barack Obama not voting for Hillary Clinton. To my mind, pragmatism would entail changing this strategy, now that it has lost the Democratic Party all voice in American government beyond the strongly-worded tweet.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
There is a way to avoid being accused of not caring about people. It is to stop saying things that demonstrate that fact. I get that you did not -mean- to say that the minority population of any state that voted for Trump deserves whatever they have coming. You just forgot that they existed when you said, and I quote, "If someone chooses to suffere, how does me not stopping them make it my fault?" Welcome to democracy. The people who Cory Booker says are worth less than pharmaceutical industry profits get to vote. This is why Cory Booker saying they are worth less than pharmaceutical profits is a bad thing, strategically.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:This is an incredibly disgusting mischaracterization of what he said and you are a lovely fuckhead who should kill yourself IRL. Real slap in the face to be reminded what the human cost of the democratic party abandoning red states is, ain't it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:drat turns out the intolerant ones were the centrists the whole time Say that we need to build a wall to keep the Mexicans out of our country, but, you know, a smaller one than Trump's, and the centrist liberal smiles approvingly at the Sensible Pragmatism being displayed. Say that abandoning minorities to Republican rule has a cost measured in tortured people and destroyed human lives, and the centrist liberal demands your death. Odd.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2017 23:51
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I guess i should have considered this, as it is completely true that no position can be non-ideological. I was trying to articulate what I see as hostility to anything that isn't as much X as you are. I feel this thread is extremely representative of it. When it comes to things like, say, "are pharmaceutical companies more important than voters" you've signaled very strongly we don't agree, is the thing. And for those of us who believe that getting the power we had back involves appealing to voters more than we appeal to a package of special interests, agreement there seems to be considerably more important than it is to you. Hence the hostility, because to us it appears that you are clinging very strongly to an ideological principle that is hopelessly counterproductive to the Democratic Party's goals in both the short and long term. That you did not realize "gently caress 'em for not voting for us" was an ideological principle that entailed the electrocution of gay people for the crime of not outvoting Republicans is kinda demonstrative of the problem imo Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 00:29
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Cory Booker isn't my senator. I didn't support anything. You just assumed that because I support using his vote to get things done that I'm some sort of monster. I have no problem with him as a senator, but I also don't consider his vote on a symbolic amendment on a failed bill as indicative of the quality of his principles. If you can find a better candidate that can beat him, awesome. Until then his vote will be rather useful , and demonizing him doesn't exactly achieve anything. Hi, welcome to democracy, I see you're new. Nancy Pelosi caught some undeserved flak recently for her statement "there are advantages to being the minority party." One of those advantages is that you are freed from the constraints of actually having to implement what you promise. Unless the bill being discussed is something the majority party actively wants to pass, your vote's sole value is what it symbolizes. And Cory Booker, presented with a symbolic choice between signaling his support to the american voter, and signalling his support to the pharmaceutical industry, decided that option B was the superior option. Freed of any fears that he'd have to take heat for implementing this, presented only the choice between who was more important to appeal to, the american voter or a fat stack of cash, he picked the fat stack of cash. This is just about as cut-and-dried a statement of principle as you will get from a politician. And demonizing him helps transmit the very important message that said principle is not a good thing to have in someone who wants to be leader of the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Is that what you think you are doing? Really? 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. But I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. Miss all the shots you don't take, as it were. I understand if your principles prevent you from supporting a democratic candidate who hasn't called for a border wall, really, I do, but sometimes in politics you have to make sacrifices like "lifting a goddamned finger in their support" in order to make your preferred policy decisions happen. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Lol there's a poster in Cspam who worked with the campaign that defends their decision to not give out lawn signs because the computer said it doesn't make that much of a difference. that ain't just a thing the computer says, that's a thing that's been known and measured for more than a decade at this point. you hand out signs exclusively as make-work, because the only thing they are better than is literally telling volunteers to gently caress off, you have no use for their trying to volunteer. OFA had Obama signs, sure, but any day you were being told to put up signs was a day they had nothing for you to do but still wanted you to feel useful.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Because it pisses you off so much thank you, every Trump voter
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:"why should we bother campaigning for votes that we don't already have" is a great way to ensure that your party never wins a contested election ever again "we have just lost an election by overfocusing on the assumption that suburban white people will vote for democrats if sufficiently pandered to" "i've got it, we'll try to appeal to libertarians instead"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Instead of making strawmen out of idiot libertarians, the Dems could remember the working class exists every once in awhile the joke, for those of you in the audience, is the Venn diagram for "white suburban republican" and "libertarian voter" is two concentric circles agreed that an appeal to the working class is the answer. on a related note, guess who the working class finds even more laughably unrepresentative a joke than the democratic or republican parties.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
axeil posted:He's right though. In the aggregate things are getting better. The problem is there are some people for whom things are getting worse or not getting as better and they're lashing out. These people should be provided for, however the existence of these folks doesn't undermine his argument. "Things ARE getting better!" "Sure, wages outside the top 20% have been static for thirty years while health costs have only risen, democrats have lost all voice in federal government, our infrastructure is crumbling, our education is falling apart, ocean levels are rising, fascism's resurgent, and American foreign policy is dependent on what the last person on Fox News said, but the finance industry is doing great, so that cancels out all that other poo poo." "Why does the democratic party keep losing elections btw"
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Do you think when the question was asked either the interviewer or the interviewee understood it to mean "will you ever accept money to do anything for any firm on wall st ever again"? or do you think they were talking about generally how obama would spend his time after office and whether it would be substantially devoted to a new lucrative career in the finance sector? Nevvy you have backed yourself into the corner of saying "No, when Obama said he wouldn't be working for Wall Street he didn't mean he wouldn't be working for Wall Street" The entire point of the Pragmatic Centrist ideology is that it means you don't have to bother defending corruption, you just say "Well, it's not an ideal situation, but I'll accept it in the name of [insert unconnected concept here]" and consider the matter closed. You're trying to defend something it is impossible to defend on ideological grounds, ideologically. this is not a winning strategy, pragmatic man
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:That's not the point. The point is that Obama said he wouldn't devote the rest of his life substantially to working in finance. That's by far the most reasonable and natural reading of the interview. Neither Obama nor the interviewer saw that question and answer as referring to speaking engagements and you wouldn't either if Bernie hadn't made Clinton's speaking fees into a dumb wedge issue. and after all, who could call four hundred thousand dollars substantial? most likely just poor people. seriously, you all keep digging yourselves deeper when the explicit point of the Pragmatic Centrist political philosophy is to justify corruption like this. embrace what you are, there are benefits, you just keep on trying to deny them for god knows what reason.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:Obama's actions in the Presidency were all just a long con to set himself up for sweet speaking fees from financial groups after he ended his political career. Seriously, like this. This is how you defend it. Does it look like corruption? Sure. Does anyone believe for a second that he would be getting these fees if he had gone after the companies in question in any meaningful way? Of course not. Does it stink to high heaven in context of his statements three months ago? Absolutely. Is this precisely how the mechanism of regulatory capture operates, yes. But can we know, for a fact, that this is a fee being exchanged for services rendered over the last eight years? No. And therefore, it's okay.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:But he didn't say he wouldn't do that thing dummy. He said something else entirely. That's the point. That in your fanfiction Obama added the word "substantial" to his statement is no doubt a source of great comfort to you. Isn't it curious how even Ogmius' version of Obama still made an egregious fuckup, though?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:YES! Hiya, checking in with professional expertise here, axeil will be able to back me up on this one. They -could-. But when the bright young thing proposes it, there will be someone at the meeting table who shifts posture uncomfortably, and one guy who grimaces a little, and after a little discussion someone will say in that wonderful adult-trying-not-to-tell-a-child-no-outright tone "I'm not sure that fits with our target optics." The word "synergize" may be used depending on precisely how far up its own rear end the table in question is. The proposal will be tabled, and somewhere between that moment and the actual requests for speakers the proposal will die a quiet, ignominious death. Consulting's a bad line of work to stay in if you ever feel embarrassment-by-proxy. There's no rule forbidding it. On paper, it's a great idea! And yet, the vague, carefully-never-openly-voiced sense of hostility is sufficient to guarantee that the social calendar of the most popular politician in America is curiously bereft of invitations to Wall Street speaking engagements. Systemic incentives: they're a bitch and a half. As Majorian can vouch, there is nothing quite so concerned about how Other People Might Be Turned Off By This as someone who is, themselves, really profoundly turned off by the This in question.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
zeroprime posted:I don't think it's quid-pro-quo and you clearly do, and I'm sorry for mocking that. What standards should we use when ex-presidents get paid a shitload of money in speaking fees, though, to decide when it's done as a form of influence on politics vs when it's just institutions with too much money blowing cash on the prestige of an ex-President speaking at an event? And do we decide there is intent behind it, or is it a problem of this problem organically arising from the way the political system and financial laws are currently written? Nah, I don't think it's explicit quid-pro-quo either. It exists in the same grey area all really effective regulatory capture exists in: "it is entirely possible this is just me doing this out of the goodness of my heart, but nobody involved believes for a second you'd be getting this offer if I considered you an enemy." It doesn't matter what the intent of the organization in question is, when you get right down to it. The result is the same: every politician gets a nice, healthy reminder of what kind of gifts await good girls and boys if they don't piss off the hand that feeds them. Figuring out an effective way to address this problem is particularly thorny, for which reason the Pragmatic Centrist "ah c'mon it's just how the game is played" brush-off is shockingly effective. Easier to just pretend it's not there.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:lol maybe in Centrist-World in fairness the whole point of being a centrist is so you can yell "PURISTS!" at people when they catch you in an outright lie
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Are you comparing Obamacare to jim crow here? I don't get it. Obamacare needs participating health care companies to work. The healthcare conference Obama is speaking at is designed to connect health care companies with investors. If you think Obamacare death spiraling is a bad thing, obama giving this speech is a good thing. I've highlighted the part where you make a massive, unsupported leap of faith for your convenience. What about connecting health care companies with investors indicates that they are going to do so in a way that supports Obamacare? I seem to recall the last time Obama and the centrist dems trusted that the financial industry would support their policies out of gratitude they were quite rudely surprised.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 21:23
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You're right, I cannot prove what the outcome of a future event will be. But that's not really important, right? The story is plausible. Private companies offer policies on the Obamacare exchanges. More companies offering plans is good, fewer is bad. To expand their offerings, insurance companies need investment. This conference connects healthcare investors with healthcare companies. It's not complicated. They're paying him to speak for them. Not the other way around. Why do you assume that Obama, having accepted eight times the median american household's yearly income to speak for these people, is going to for the first time in eight years give any backtalk whatsoever to the people on whom his future speaking engagement career depends. Your fanfiction version of Obama did not exist at any point in the last decade, when he was even hypothetically capable of making good on the threat you imagine him delivering. What in the world possesses you to think yes, now that his quality of life going forward is explicitly dependant on cashing these people's checks, NOW he's going to bring the thunder?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Wishing death on people because they disagree with you online. Truly The Enlightened Left. Goodness, Nevvy. Coming from you that sounds a mite hypocritical.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 22:55
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:You got a post that backs that completely false accusation? oh wow, :the joke: much? Sometimes pragmatic centrism demands people kill themselves for pointing out what happens when they abandon red states. I'm sure there are some very sensible reasons for that brand of demanding death for disagreement, though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:If you can't tell the difference between my post and Kilroys that's on you dumdum. When you demand the death of someone pointing out the human cost of your politics, it is pragmatic centrism. When Kilroy demands the death of people who disagree with him, it is proof his ideas are to be discarded. You so rarely see the moderate's core position so beautifully illuminated: all other harms must be considered wholly subordinate to not making Nevvy Z feel bad.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Context: not a thing according to ze Pollack. Ignored. https://twitter.com/dril/status/653442336505114624
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Lol since when does defending Obamacare constitute backtalk to the financial industry? JC I have extremely bad news for you about the events of the 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016 House and Senate elections. "Or else government's going to step in." Christ. Can you imagine a more laughable person to voice that threat than Barack "the only reason Medicare still exists is the Freedom Caucus wouldn't let me cut it" Obama.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:He was being sarcastic. Come on dude. When the person saying this is on record as saying the reason the Hillary campaign failed was that it was "too pluralistic," it becomes worth asking the question, imo. It seems JC has him some Opinions about the proper place of minorities in the democratic party, and it's not 'we should be paying more attention to their needs.'
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:You're technically correct, which makes it doubly stupid that Obama is dragging the Democratic Party's name through the mud for a mere pittance. It's one of those things where on a personal level, if it was one of my friends being asked to do it, hey, more power to them. When the person in question is supposed to be a representative of the party that has as one of its ostensible goals preventing exactly this kind of institutional corruption, the sentence "what the gently caress do you think you're doing" starts bubbling its way to the forebrain.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:"Other people are racist so it's okay for me to be slightly less racist" It's so great that the Democratic Party is run by Team "A few years ago this boy would have been carrying our bags" now. The underlying ideology leaks out in all the most interesting places.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:JC just apologize for the comment so that we can move on from this. As excited as I am for another Ze Pollack opus a la You're asking JC to apologize for saying something baseless and pointlessly inflammatory. Fair warning, this is not an angle that traditionally pays off.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:As much fun as slapping JeffersonClay around for his heinous unthinking obedience to the status quo is, there is some news about the DCCC's involvement in the Montana at-large special election. Basically, the DCCC is contributing some money to the race, but as with Kansas, they are holding back with advertising while the Republicans deluge the state with money. The article can be found here http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/28/montana-special-election-2017-early-voting-237751 and I've pasted the relevant excerpt below: Gonna disagree, actually. The 200k looks like a good experimental value; you hit diminishing returns real loving fast when it comes to political money, as the DNC has painfully learned. Not even sending 20K is a laughable slap in the face to the idea of a 50 state strategy; establishing even if you're running in loving montana you're worth 200K is about the message I'd like to see displayed. You hold back because you want to be able to repeat this stunt across the map next year.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 01:29
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Ahahahahahaha how I am laughing. God this is wonderful. Mods, goldmine this poo poo. We're not gonna get a better coda than that. The collapse of rudatron into full-on hatred of all the darker peoples of the earth on grounds they're not the right flavor of woke for him has been ongoing for quite some time now. Trevor Noah issuing a lame-rear end joke in defense of the democratic establishment driving him to existential despair is not unpredictable, but it is embarrassing to watch. Not least because it demonstrates he still considers the Daily Show politically relevant.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
Condiv posted:what are you talking about? i like that you didn't bother to provide a quote for me he's still mad that when he lumped every PoC, gay, trans, and otherwise minority voter in Kansas in as "odious" filth unworthy of his support, I pointed out MLK's stance on people like him was a pretty solid "poo poo or get off the pot, man." Genuinely believe him and rudatron should have a heart-to-heart, they'll find they're very much in agreement on the horror of "idpol." How dare those uppity fuckers want help when I'd prefer not to offer any.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:I'm saying that if you're using criticism of racism entirely devoid of context, well don't be surprised that I offer arguments of the same sort of caliber. Maj, you and I both know that yes, while what NFS posted is true, it's also disingenuous as gently caress. Her positions changed since then, if for no other reason than because the Republican party took them. Your defense of being called racist is to disingenously accuse the people who called you out of being the real racists. Fascinating. At this level of centrism you'll be ranting about how the party could win if it wasn't for all the welfare queens by June.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:I love it when Bernieists pretend that all those posts about how Democrats abandoned the white working class never happened, that no one defined "working class" as "manufacturing workers", etc. It really shows how much regard they have for honesty. Yeah, all the Clinton acolytes posting their fury about how $15 an hour was just a white working class position were kind of embarrassing. The party of "a few years ago this guy would have been carrying our bags" seems to have developed a profound blind spot wherein "working class" and "minority" are two completely distinct electoral bodies instead of having (for reasons TOTALLY unrelated to Clinton tough-on-crime and take-a-hacksaw-to-medicare policies) almost total overlap. Certainly, there are sheltered Bernie-supporting dipshits who buy into that framing. And in a discussion of Trump's strategy, which was 100% about appealing to the white working class at the cost of the more traditional Republican stronghold of white suburbia, I can see how misunderstandings could arise. But there's a reason that 'white working class' is a phrase you hear exclusively from Trump partisans and DNC water-carriers these days. SSNeoman posted:Well apparently I'm racist cause I think Kansas should ride out their consequences. So yeah, that's the sort of logic at play itt. "how dare you call me bigoted just because I think the black kids there deserve to be summarily executed and the gays there deserve to be electrocuted" poo poo's amazing. How much minority suffering is worth one Republican voter suffering, in your mind? 5 black lives destroyed to three white lives inconvenienced, does that sound like an acceptable ratio?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:19 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Ah, trying to ding me on a technicality. Clearly the sign of a strong argument. Effectronica you have been a good poster before and will be so again. Right now, Kommissar Staev is successfully dunking on you for fishmeching. Something has gone very, very wrong here.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2017 19:53
|
|