|
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 | ||
|
I'm just here to revel in Joe Biden's continued self-destruction.
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 13:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
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. Unless you've literally been in a coma for the past four years this debate won't be your first impression of Bernie Sanders, so I dunno what the hell you're on about. Democrazy posted: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. Yeah, that's pretty obvious. If you have two front-runners and one starts imploding, then the second one can be expected to benefit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 15:18
|
|
|
Harris is toast from the get-go because her campaign is the dumping grounds for former Hillary lanyards, that is to say arguably the most incompetent bunch of fuckers in politics ever, and given that they don't have the advantage of rigging the entire thing in their favor this time, that ain't gonna cut it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
LionArcher posted:So I’ve been in the past threads as not loving Bernie. I’ll start by stating I was wrong about the book thing, and for that I apologize. I read a couple of hot takes on twitter and didn’t do research before bringing it here. Somebody asked me why I don’t like him, and last night I think it was covered perfectly. His policy’s are all things I generally agree with (minus that judge flub). But his delivery method bugs me. He yells too much, and just seems too old. Contrast that with Warren, who I like a great deal. Buddy, you're not supposed to outright admit that you go for style over substance. Also, how exactly do you know who's "electable" and who's not?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 18:26
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:It's not that she's "kooky", she's an out and out anti-vaxxer. Measles maims and kills people. Cervical and throat cancer maim and kill people. These issues and more are now largely preventable because of vaccines. We used to have poo poo like smallpox and yearly polio seasons and we don't anymore because of modern loving medicine. We have record outbreaks of diseases that were previously declared eradicated in the United States because anti-vaxxers keep traveling to areas with active outbreaks and bringing it back home. These outbreaks affect newborns, the immunocompromised, folks who were vaccinated but the vaccine didn't take and the medically neglected children of anti-vaxxers. The thing is that most other candidates in the race are for things that maim and kill even more people.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
Williamson is pretty irrelevant, but she's good in the sense that she makes the people who aren't actually serious about unfucking all the fuckery that the US is up to really expose themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
Bernie's ultimately gonna win due to a far superior ground game compared to the rest of the pack, and that's just how it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Point of order: I thought it was a well established and actually oft-mentioned fact ITT that Warren was the one with the biggest staff and number of field offices by far. In fact that was used as reasoning to pronounce her run dead only mere months ago. But Bernie's is formidable, yes. That's irrelevant since Bernie has a literal army of volunteers to draw upon. Warren doesn't have anything like that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
I guess it explains a thing or two that LinYutang apparently doesn't know about the margin of error.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 21:44
|
|
|
TheOneAndOnlyT posted:I don't really get this sentiment that Warren is a sure loss against Trump. If anything, she strikes me as the sort of candidate that will have the fewest problems when it comes to firing up the Democratic base as a whole. A lot of Bernie voters seem to consider her "good enough" to vote for in the general, but she's also "establishment" enough that liberals and olds won't be afraid to vote for her. Add to that the chance to boot out Trump and she seems like she'd be a lock. I know polls say she does worse than Biden/Bernie against Trump, but polls this far out don't mean poo poo. The establishment people who say that they're fine with Warren are lying, hth. It's literally the same story everywhere and every time, what they do is pretend to support the second most left candidate and then turn on them once the leftmost alternative has been smoked out. Also Warren let Trump goad her into scoring an own goal for absolutely no reason, so that's somewhat concerning.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:On issues like social justice or foreign policy, there are powerful stakeholders on the "wrong" side, and it's inevitable that most candidates will feel that they need to engage with at least some of these in order to build a winning coalition. Endorph posted:i think its less bad in some ways and worse in other ways. on one hand its obviously worse in terms of how it affects people and the world (though if anti-vax continues to grow instead of being snuffed out that's a comparison that could get muddier) but on the other hand there's centuries of massive government corruption that encourage someone to have at least vaguely hawkish tendencies, either out of selfishness or out of some weird view of 'electability.' not that that makes those positions okay to hold but there's at least a reason why someone would hold them beyond plain agreement with them, which isn't something you can say for anti-vax. You two do realize that what you're doing here is cutting slack to someone for essentially choosing to commit or at least condone mass murder in the pursuit of personal power? Like, that's some hosed up priorities right there. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 07:28 on Jun 29, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 07:23
|
|
|
Endorph posted:My point is that anti-vax people, are also doing this. Yeah, but the warmongers and market fundamentalists are objectively a million times more harmful, and yet we've had like ten pages of people yelling about some kooky fringe candidate having dumb opinions, and barely a peep about far worse people with far worse opinions who actually have a shot at winning. Incidentally, this is how you're cutting those fuckers slack, in addition to the whole "well at least they have a real motivation" thingy, which comes off as mildly exculpatory whether you intended that or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 10:36
|
|
|
Saagonsa posted:You can think multiple things and people are bad at once, and even think that some are bad but not as bad as the others! Sure. But when one of those people receives negative attention that is far disproportionate to the actual harm they cause one is forced to conclude that there's some bias involved here. Saagonsa posted:E: Like, this is literally the line of argument that people who complain about the "dems bad crew" use. "Why are you talking so much about how bad the democrats are instead of the much worse republicans?" As if there's not a pretty big agreement among all the people talking that the republicans are bad so there's nothing to really discuss. The first difference here is that the Dems are objectively causing massive harm that is on the same order of magnitude as that caused by the GOP (if for no other reason then because the Dem establishment has been a willing enabler of the GOP agenda), whereas Williamson is a broadly irrelevant kook. The second difference is that "why aren't you talking about the republicans" isn't an actual good-faith argument, it's just a transparent attempt to shut down discussion and move the topic somewhere more palatable. Ironically enough, this is also exactly what the disproportionate focus on Williamson is doing - by centering the conversation solely around how bad the crazy crystal lady is, the liberals don't have to confront the fact that their own preferred candidates are objectively worse. And that's some bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 12:18
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Because there's no point of disagreement there. Marianne gets posts because people disagree on weather her ironic support should be real. Beto gets a single snipe because no one thinks he's good and no one of going to stand up for him. If someone does, we'll get pages of derails about him. Endorph posted:yes you're right nobody in this thread is criticizing biden or harris There are people ITT stanning for Warren despite her horrible-rear end views on foreign policy. There are even people who have said that Harris is hot poo poo now. Yet the discussion is safely steered away from the actual threats and into the safe harbours of yelling about some crystal weirdo no-hoper. Also nobody is actually saying that Williamson is the best choice, you're just misconstruing people indicting the rest of the field by way of a comparison to her as actual support. Pinky Artichoke posted:I agree that Bernie will most consistently say things about the things he supports. Outcomes however require doing and that is not his thing. You know, when you're trying to troll you really shouldn't recycle something that was debunked last time around.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 14:31
|
|
|
TulliusCicero posted:I have news for all you "can't vote because principles" people: I have some news for you too. See, this kinda poo poo you're saying here? It doesn't loving work. You can't scold somebody to vote the way you want them to, and 2016 really ought to have taught everyone that. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that this is counterproductive liberal bullshit, because individualizing the responsibility and passing it on to voters lets the party establishment off the hook, and they're a million times more responsible for losing elections than some rando on the internet. So if you wanna yell at somebody, go yell at the Dem leadership for being a buncha incompetent fuckups. GreyjoyBastard posted:Typo is probably being ironic because he's doing a crossover between Marianne support and his CCP alter ego. Yeah, in case somebody's new here, Typo is a gimmick poster, and a bad one at that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 15:31
|
|
|
VH4Ever posted:You wanna meet me on the streets sometime, rear end in a top hat? I'll show you where the gently caress you belong. Meltdown May has been over for a while, buddy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 15:59
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Tbh it is Sophie's choice and throwing your hands up, letting things worse because you're not getting what you want, hurts a lot more people and makes no loving sense Well, that's fair, but the problem is that the status quo is literally unsustainable. This naturally will lead to people not caring if they're presented with two choices that won't actually fix things, because if you're hosed either way, then why bother? Regardless of the morality of it all, this is what is happening and will continue to happen unless an avenue for fixing poo poo presents itself.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 16:15
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:That's one of those lazy thought traps though. Again, black folks have been voting for yts who don't really care about us since we've been allowed to vote, that doesn't mean we stop trying to make things better or advocate for better people. Never stop fighting. Sure, but the important thing here is that a lot of people walk into that trap, and the amount is only going to keep increasing. Hell, if you want an example close to home, black turnout dropped to around 2004 levels in the 2016 election, so this is something that affects everyone. Basically this is why having an actually good candidate is important, and lazy-rear end "I'm not Trump" poo poo isn't going to cut it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 16:32
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:eh, I'll come out as having Warren as my #1 candidate, with Bernie as a pretty close second. The wide variety of plans to address a multitude of issues, and issues within those issues, greatly appeals to me, especially when I'm close enough to the issue that I can see the positive impacts many of those plans would have (Such as her comprehensive public lands proposal). That's not to say that I don't think that Sanders will eventually have similar proposals, but the hardcore focus on these issues and the team of advisors she's put together leads me to believe that she would have a greater understanding of the underlying issues and thus be more effective at implementing policies that would otherwise be outside of Sanders' more narrow economic focus. But that's just me, and I can understand why others in this forum would disagree. So are you saying that some meaningless gesture like this supposed to outweigh her support for the brutal oppression of an entire people?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 16:55
|
|
|
IUG posted:I'm also leaning towards Warren as a candidate for my primary vote, and have given her like $15 including for some bumper stickers. Before I stick that to my car, can someone go over the reasons to not support her? She's openly defended Israel bombing the poo poo out of the Palestinians for the crime of rattling their cage.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 17:10
|
|
|
IUG posted:Yeah, I'm not calling for the government to subsidize MySpace or anything. But I do like the idea of breaking Facebook into Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp (that's theirs, right?), and stopping that cryptocurrency from happening. Then also splitting up Amazon/AWS, Apple/Apple Music/Hardware/Software, etc etc, and hopefully just beyond the tech companies. Breaking up the megacorps in general so they stop being a monopoly and having such huge influence. As mentioned we're talking about a natural monopoly here, and as such it makes far more sense to take it into public ownership rather than splitting things up just for the sake of splitting them up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 19:19
|
|
|
Germany has had mandatory worker representation on boards since the seventies and that hasn't stopped them from being hypercapitalist austerity mongers, so it's no silver bullet.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:I'm still voting for Warren and the pages of spilled ink in this thread hasn't really changed that, but people can rally for their candidate all they want. More people support Bernie in this thread, so most of the posts will be about Bernie. OK. While you're at it, would you also care to explain why Israel has an absolute right to blow Palestinian women and children to smithereens whenever they feel like it?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 21:11
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:You realize that post was saying that Bernie posters in this thread aren't overbearing assholes who are trying to drive everyone out, right? Yea, real assholish to point out that you value your fuzzy idea of a "more effective president" over millions of people not having to live in constant misery interspersed with the occasional bout of mass murder. You got me there, how could any sane person find something like that objectionable? Tibalt posted:I didn't say they're the same, I said they're on the same side - something their policies and votes reflect. Tell me more about Bernie approving the bombing of schools and hospitals and waxing lyrical about the necessity of arming the people who bomb them.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:Who would you say has the closest Israel stance to Bernie's among the candidates on stage Wednesday and Thursday? Preferably one not polling at 1%. Tell me more about the tiny insignificant difference of condoning Israeli war crimes or not.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
generic one posted:I’m not gonna call out specific posters, and there have been a few folks who posted that they feel the same way, so I don’t think it’s a question of whether or not that happens. It does, in this thread, and especially the protest voting thread. If somebody starts pulling obvious dishonest bullshit then they deserve to be called out for it. There's also an element of pattern recognition here, because a lot of the poo poo we see it the exact same poo poo that was pulled in 2016, such as the "well Bernie and X are basically the same" claim that we can see on this very page. Tibalt posted:Oh good, I was feeling a bit alone on this. Anyway, I understand where you're coming from, but politicians are always going to be different when placed in different contexts. I don't find it to be an uncross-able red line but more of something you need to take into account. Have you considered that you might be getting a hostile reaction because you don't see condoning literal war crimes as a dealbreaker?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 21:49
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:Claiming that Warren is like Clinton and that the DNC in 2016 is the same DNC now comes across as a bit paranoid, though. Warren isn't Clinton. The DNC made a point of trying to be even-handed and fair, which is why you had 20 candidates on stage over two nights. Tell me more how it's paranoid to be suspicious of the organization that literally let itself be bought by one of the candidates last time around. Also the only way to keep those fuckers on the straight and narrow is to watch them like a goddamn hawk and raise hell the moment it looks like they could even consider starting some fuckery.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 21:57
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:The main thing about foreign policy is that few of the candidates really expect it to matter, especially this early in the election, so for now all you can do is dig through the past (that Warren clip was from 2014). I expect all of them will be fairly flexible about foreign policy for a while, and yes, I mean all of them. Bernie Sanders has had a few takes like being anti-trade agreements, seeming a bit soft on the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea, and some galaxy brain takes on how Qatar should get involved in military adventurism to fight ISIS. The one biggest thing I liked about Bernie was how I heard that he was against constant bombing campaigns, but here he is in 2015 saying that he'd still do drone strikes as president. On the other side of the coin, here's Warren joining Bernie on a resolution condemning Netanyahu a couple weeks ago. Like it or not, you're not gonna get any clear answers on foreign policy right now. How exactly is this supposed to work? Even if we assume that you're right it doesn't matter how much to how little you try to do unless there's some seismic shift in Congress, because the usual suspects will just stonewall any and all progressive legislation no matter what. To me this just sounds like Hillmen back in the day insisting that Clinton would somehow get her agenda through a hostile Congress by dint of some monomaniacal act of willpower, and that's why she's better than Bernie. Also, as has been mentioned, a large part of Bernie's plans are in actual Senate bills that could be passed this instant if the political will were there, so how exactly is a wide approach worse if you have a large chunk of the agenda literally ready to go?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2019 07:40
|
|
|
Craptacular! posted:I’m just tired of “well you know (name) will not keep to their promises” as if that’s some kind of tangible negative. You’re predicting the future, and it’s deliberately hard to argue with someone who feels they can prognosticate eventual timelines. In case you've missed the past ten-fifteen years or so, do you know what's interesting about those anti-abortion people and other sundry GOP fanatics who actually demanded that their politicians cater to them or they'd gently caress them over? They loving won. They managed to drag the entire country far towards their preferred politics, and even did that while being a minority of voters. So why exactly are you mad at people for wanting to do what works to get something good passed for a change?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2019 09:14
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Yeah Clinton wasn’t even remotely electable. She only thrashed your guy in a nationwide primary and came within 70,000 votes in three states of winning. Not remotely electable. Your great centrist hope threw the race to Donald loving Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:It’s not logically possible for someone who lost a presidential election by 70,000 votes to not be “remotely” electable. Sorry you don’t understand words. It is when you lose to Donald loving Trump due to your own incompetence, hth.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2019 19:47
|
|
|
CelestialScribe posted:I've said a lot of stupid poo poo in this thread but this must be the dumbest thing I have ever seen someone say in D and D. Given that you admit that you're an idiot and you think that post was dumb, I'm forced to conclude that it was, in fact, smart and correct. Thanks a lot for clearing that up, pal. Also the capitalist class is generally against M4A because it would remove one of the biggest sources of power it holds over the workers, and hence lead to a loss of both influence and money in the long run.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 11:21
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:That's debatable. I agree with the premise, but among salaried workers, job to job movement has never been higher It's extremely clear once you ditch the liberal perspective of looking at individual employers and instead look at the capitalist class as a whole. For their class interest it doesn't really matter where any individual works, only that most everybody has the latent threat of losing your health insurance hanging over them.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 11:29
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:I agree to an extent, but let's not forget that banks in the 00's sowed the seeds of their own demise by looking at only the next quarter/year's profits. You give way too much credit to "capitalists" by assuming they know what the gently caress they're doing as a monolithic entity oxsnard posted:They also crashed the economy and the stock market looking out for just themselves. Thanks for making my point for me They crashed the economy and didn't care very much because they knew that they'd bought the government, and hence the government would bail them out. The net result was that the capitalist class obtained even more power and money than before.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 11:54
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:That was never a forgone conclusion. Yes, they are encouraged to act recklessly by the system but this wasn't a Machiavellian plan or something. jfc It always was a foregone conclusion. Also you're the only one who's even mentioned the idea of a Machiavellian plan existing so far. oxsnard posted:No they're mostly opposed for it now. But there's got to be a tipping point when medical costs go up 5-10% per year. That's my point There isn't. If healthcare costs go up too much they'll just start giving people cheaper and shittier healthcare plans. E: oxsnard posted:Hmmmm yes I suppose the CEOs of all the companies not in finance that went bankrupt or lost billions said "we shall let this happen as it is in the benefit of us capitalists for the long term" In the vast majority of cases, the CEO:s and the owners are different people. This is pretty basic stuff, and frankly it doesn't really reflect well on you that you keep flubbing these things. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 12:05 on Jul 2, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 12:03
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Where did I defend Bezos? He's an absolute oval office. Again thanks for making my point for me Not trying to be rude here, but from what I'm seeing here you don't even have a point.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 12:54
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:My point is that capitalists, while being greedy fucks, will advocate for lower healthcare costs once it materially benefits them. HC costs can't just keep lapping GDP forever. Either it all burns down or the other non-healthcare businesses will collectively stop it. M4A is probably the easiest route As I already mentioned, they'll just start giving employees cheaper and shittier healthcare plans if costs rise to an intolerable level, because as long as there's no universal healthcare they've got a massive leverage over the workers. You're saying that they'd throw away this leverage for no reason instead of using it to cut costs, and a quick cursory look at how capitalism works should be all the evidence you need that they'll pick the latter option.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 13:48
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:Is leverage really that high? I mean conceptually, I agree with the premise, but why are job-to-job transfers at an all time high? Healthcare costs are going to rise at about the same pace for everyone, so if the time comes to downgrade health plans most of the employers will do it at about the same time. Hence the job transfer thingy is irrelevant because any holdouts that try to keep better healthcare will be punished for not cutting costs when they had the opportunity, and besides that it's not like said holdouts can employ literally everyone whose health plans got downgraded either. Therefore they'll follow suit very quickly and the worse health plans will become standard. So what are the workers going to do then? Quit and have no healthcare? That's not even remotely an option for the vast majority of workers, and that's where the leverage is found. This is why you need to look at the capitalist class as a whole, and not stare yourself blind at individual firms. Also if healthcare plans get shittier across the board it won't make that big of a dent in the insurance companies, because we've already established that poo poo's more expensive and now they also have less poo poo they'll have to cover.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 14:08
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:4. There is no circumstance in which a capitalist would advocate for a government subsidized program because capitalists are bad and also stupid even if it means they make less money as a result Nobody's saying this, what the actual argument is that there are other considerations that keep the capitalist class as a whole opposed to M4A regardless of any savings they could make. You keep ignoring this to instead beat on a strawman, most likely because you either don't understand what's being argued or because don't have any real counterarguments and you know it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 14:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
The actual campaigning has barely even started, so maybe we should wait and see before freaking out over some garbage polling?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2019 19:30
|
|