|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Inappropriate Toucher |
|
18 | 1.46% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
665 | 54.11% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
319 | 25.96% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
26 | 2.12% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
5 | 0.41% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
17 | 1.38% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
8 | 0.65% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
86 | 7.00% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
23 | 1.87% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
32 | 2.60% |
| Eric Swalwell, the Insurance Wife Guy |
|
2 | 0.16% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.08% |
| Bill de Blasio, the NYPD Most Hated |
|
4 | 0.33% |
| Tim Ryan, the Dope Face |
|
3 | 0.24% |
| John Hickenlooper, the Also Ran |
|
7 | 0.57% |
| Total: | 1229 votes | ||
|
Despite having never given any money to a candidate before this cycle, today is payday, and I kinda wanna give to Marianne Williamson. I just want to see how far we can take this.
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 13:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:Please don't make Dianne from Cheers and Frasier the Meme Magic President in 2020 I know that’s the logical thing to do, but like, what if she made that call to the Prime Minister of New Zealand?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 13:44
|
|
|
My serious analysis is that a secret winner of this debate might be Bernie Sanders. While he didn’t do anything spectacular in the debate, he didn’t do anything too bad, and debates were never going to be his strong suit, anyway. He also is likely to benefit from Biden’s meltdown, as there has been some polling showing an overlap between Biden and Bernie’s support.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 14:01
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:I dunno, if I was his campaign manager I'd be Guarded but not at outright Concerned yet. Debates have more potential to kill campaign than to boost it, so him coming out unscathed is definitely a good thing. But it was a weak first impression to make, and it's making him vulnerable to an attack on his age. Standing next to Biden while Slalwell is calling him an old gently caress isn't a great look. I dunno, I thought the only part where he looked bad were the parts where he felt attacked by Swalwell’s comments about age and getting a new generation in there. That kind of defensiveness did not suit him. I’m just not convinced that he’s the best fit for the back and forth of a debate. I think he gets too heated; he’s better where he can talk about what he wants to do, rather than feeling the need to respond to others.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 14:52
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I think they deleted the tweet now but they posted a picture of them hanging out with some Tulsi staffers with strong “we’re going to go to the hotel room and drink now” energy. Are those kids even 18? That’s really gross.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 16:53
|
|
|
unwantedplatypus posted:I think Marianne Williamson is actually better than 95% of the other fuckos who were on that stage, and the biggest reason people itt arent willing to offer her a degree of unironic support is due to her pre-existing reputation as a non-serious candidate. She's the only one who really talked about imperialism, preventative health care, or actual reparations. Her last bit talking directly to Trump might have been an attempt to get him to tweet about her, which would be pretty drat smart (thought she also might just be a bit kooky and that wasn't a consideration for her). I don’t know if these takes a serious, but they definitely have a “Trump is actually leftist if you think about it” vibe
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
Eschenique posted:So this picture has been making the rounds. Sanders is management for his campaign. Within the context of his relationship to the union within his campaign, he more or less acted in good faith to renegotiate wages. The union did its job to gain concessions from management using the campaign’s unique vulnerability on the issue. The episode between Sanders and his union is largely ordinary. I also don’t understand the unfair labor practices charge brought up against him - his campaign is members’ jobs, they have an interest in making sure that this story is ultimately a positive story. Maybe this is something that the membership demanded, but it does seem confusing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 18:58
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Any individual can file a complaint with the NLRB, and one of the docket items under the filing is regarding wrongful termination, so it's possible someone was let go and they mad. Gotcha, I was not aware that there was a wrongful termination charge in there. That’s more serious than what I initially thought. I could understand perhaps filing charges on that, depending on the circumstances, but I have to imagine that a disaffected member or union could avail themselves of a grievance procedure. Campaigns are very odd ducks in terms of employment, and I’m not super convinced that a model of organizing individual campaigns is particularly sensible. The employment is too unsteady and the circumstances change so rapidly as to make representation difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 19:26
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Lol you've literally bought wholesale into a single slogan - "I Have A Plan For That" and are now busy embarrassing yourself stanning for a woman who was a Republican into the 90s. I honestly don’t understand how someone changing their political views over time to the better is somehow a mark against their character.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 20:57
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Warren has changed her views for real bad to less bad, but they're still bad is the problem. If she had actually managed to figure out that capitalism is the problem we wouldn't be having this conversation. This does not address the question of bringing up the beliefs she had in the 90’s.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 21:07
|
|
|
twodot posted:In the 90s Warren was 41. If you can't see why "A person who at 41 hadn't yet figured out their personal theory of politics is perhaps not trustworthy on politics, and certainly is less trustworthy than other existing candidates who did manage to consistently have good politics throughout their adult life" works as an argument, I have no additional help to offer. If you don’t want people over a certain age to change their politics, that’s an odd position to take in relation to electoral politics. I want people to evaluate their beliefs and to grow and ultimately end up in a better place than they started, but that’s just me. It’s also bizarre in the sense that it basically condemns every person lived in a conservative environment or else just had a different mindset to hold those beliefs in perpetuity. I mean, that’s just odd.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:You're arguing against a position that only exists in your mind. No one is saying that people shouldn't reform their lovely positions and beliefs, just that it gets you less points than always having good positions and beliefs your entire adult life I’m merely pointing out the logical conclusion of the point. If she is of bad character for changing her views, then the she should not have changed her views, so the argument goes. I think there are a lot of people who are embarrassed and too afraid to admit that that was their original intent. It’s an argument borne of exclusion.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Are you aware that Warren is running for President of the United States and not "a person who I could perhaps be friendly with"? It's okay to have standards as high as "was not a Republican in the 90s as a grown-rear end adult" in this situation. It also means that, as we progress into the future and circumstances change, she can't be relied as much to adapt to those circumstances as someone who has a previously demonstrated record of having been on the "right side" of issues before they became relatively mainstream. Who has shown an ability to adapt? The person who re-evaluated their beliefs, or the person who, according to the people in this thread, has never once engaged in the soul searching required to change your beliefs as radically as she has? It would be insulting for someone to question the faith of a convert to a religion over the course of journey of faith. Likewise, I believe it to be demeaning to both Warren and to much of America to insist that changing your political beliefs over the course of decades is somehow dishonest or untrustworthy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
It doesn’t even make any sense from a perspective of current politics, because you are trying to reach out to others with different beliefs and convince them to join your side. How does denigrating someone for changing their beliefs accomplish that?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Agreed, Bernie has never supported a political ideology that loving sucks, therefore he must never be President You can support Sanders and not attack Warren for growing in her political beliefs from where they were in the 90’s.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
twodot posted:I agree this isn't forbidden by the laws of physics, but why would a person choose to do this? A Sanders supporter presumably believes Sanders is better than Warren, highlighting the differences that favor Sanders is just sound strategy. Because it discourages people from changing their beliefs into better beliefs.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Look at my post on the last loving page dude I’m not saying you hate Warren, I’m just saying that the line about Warren’s beliefs in the 90’s is a bad line. That’s the long and short of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Much like asking people to be less racist makes them even more racist-er I don’t think this is a valid comparison. Racism is something that affects every single one of us in this white supremacist society. No one (certainly no white person) can credibly claim to always and forever not have to check in with themselves on race.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 21:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:Evidence for this? Like are you imagining there is a Republican out there that is about to start believing people shouldn't be starved to death, but then they read my post, and decided that to impress me personally they are instead going to remain consistent in being pro-starvation? This isn’t necessarily about the post on somethingawful.com, which are all irrelevant, it’s about the merits of a particular line of attack and thinking behind that attack. If you attack people and say that they can’t be trusted or are feebleminded because they at one point held different views, I think the natural outcome is to discourage people to change their views. I think we should welcome people who change their mind to the better.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 22:02
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:I was just mocking your baseless supposition by reference to a another baseless supposition that's also currently popular with the "change isn't possible" moderate intelligentsia And I was saying that it wasn’t a valid comparison.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 08:19 |
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:
If you say that Warren can’t be trusted or is dumb because of views she held in the 90’s, I believe that’s an attack, even an attack against someone you may otherwise like.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2019 22:06
|
|
