|
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 | ||
|
TulliusCicero posted:Lol at the people melting down about loving Harry Potter comparisons I think there’s a fairly good comparison to be made between the bernout crew and Ivan Karamazov.
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
VH4Ever posted:Who gives a gently caress? To the recent Marianne Williamson fans ITT (assuming you're not doing a really bad troll): what in the gently caress is wrong with you? You're what's wrong with America. We're not electing a loving anti-vax, anti-science "power of positive thought!!" moron made famous by bored white housewives on Oprah!! Jesus Christ we're a dumb as gently caress country. I really don't feel I can be nice about this anymore. People are dying. Many more will. Stop loving around and get serious about what's in front of us. I’m pretty sure the Marianne “fans” are doing a sort of bit. No one really wants her to be the nominee. It’s entertaining to have one total kook in the debates, like with Mike Gravel or Ross Perot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 15:33
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:THIS IS HOW WE GOT TRUMP Nahh Trump was something else. He was the white hot ball of rage given human form. He said what Republicans always believed. Williamson is just a kind of funny old lady who bought her way on the stage.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 15:42
|
|
|
SimonCat posted:Court packing has been brought up several times. Can someone explain how this doesn't lead to the court continually expanding every time a different party has control of the Congress and White House? It might. It would certainly undermine the legitimacy of the Court. The question is, is that worse than the status quo or better?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2019 17:09
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:The labor theory of value is garbage dreamed up by capitalist liberals trying to figure out how to monetize people's lives - like much of Marx, it was using liberal concepts to argue against liberalism but it was still garbage. Watch out ladies this guy’s too Marxist for Marx.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 03:18
|
|
|
Guys Marianne Williamson is not going to be the democratic nominee.  If Marianne Williamson is the democratic nominee, I will get a tattoo of VitalSign’s choice on a part of my body ordinarily covered by clothing.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Very brave, I don't think I'd bet on even a negative probability event with a genital tat on the line. Yeah I’m quaking in my boots.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2019 22:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do I get to choose the body part as well as the tattoo Yeah that’s ambiguous above isn’t it? How about this: you can pick the body part, but he body part must be 1. Ordinarily covered by my clothes 2. Not normally covered by my underwear. Edit: oh and if it’s extremely big or expensive, you might consider chipping in $, voluntarily. Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jun 30, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2019 04:04
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:For real. This is the party where most people plugged their ears and told themselves someone incapable of avoiding scandal and who'd had a decades-long campaign waged against them on top of that was even remotely electable. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2019 16:39
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
Lol this is the political equivalent of saying Dan Merino sucked because he was a choker who never won it all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
It’s very good and reasonable that suddenly “well it was a long time ago and now he’s open to changing his mind” is an acceptable excuse when it comes from Son Bernie.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2019 01:09
|
|
|
Abolishing the EC is objectively correct. There is absolutely no good reason to preserve the EC. I argue that there’s no good reason to have a Senate either, but people get mad when I say that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2019 18:44
|
|
|
Condiv posted:when you don't pay people, it naturally limits the amount of people that can participate in a program to those who don't have to worry about money So it seems like having a paid and unpaid program is probably the right solution then. Good thing that’s what Warren does!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
kidkissinger posted:Why not pay everyone who labors for you Those positions either would not exist at all, or there would be way fewer. Having both paid and unpaid programs allows you to maximize participation while not limiting participation to those who can afford not to be paid for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2019 21:27
|
|
|
I wonder if Bernie pays everyone who performs work for his campaign 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I just had an overwhelming need to remake the "A Man, A Plan, A canal, Panama" into an a Warren slogan deriding her plan for everything but I suck at palindromes. SOMEONE DO SOMETHING Yeah plans sure are bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:If someone opposes paying all campaign workers, I gather they’d probably also oppose overtime for campaign workers since that too would reduce the total number of workers the campaign can hire. The situation is different because campaigns aren’t for-profit businesses. People are there because they want to be, not because they’re desperate to go on living. Thus, exploitation is of less concern.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2019 17:03
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:No I get the argument people are making that wage exploitation is OK if its for a political campaign, but that would also apply to overtime payment, vacation days, breaks, limits to shift lengths, etc. This argument proves too much though. By this logic, campaigns should have to pay everyone who works on their behalf. Where is the line between a staff member and a volunteer? I’ve worked on campaigns where I put in almost full time work (especially at the end) and had a fancy title and specific responsibilities. Should that not be allowed? Keep in mind this was a ballot measure for a local issue and nobody on the campaign made any money.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2019 17:18
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:The line between a staff member and a volunteer is easy: does the position have employee like requirements? Such as required hours, required work tasks, or the like. Well, that’s my point. This is something like the legal difference between an employee and a contractor. I think there’s room for volunteer positions on campaigns and not for profit organizations that come with concrete commitments and expectations.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Right and the Warren and Biden campaigns are using a legal loophole to expand the definitions of volunteer to cover positions that are clearly internships. I guess I don’t really care if campaigns pay their interns and I don’t see it as a proxy for how a candidate is likely to regulate businesses. I do think unpaid internships at profit enterprises should be illegal.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Things will not go well next year for the Democrats. But if you’re wrong what will that mean? What level of success will cause you to reevaluate the Silent Leftist Majority hypothesis? If they retain the House? If they win the senate? If they win the White House? What would make you wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2019 18:54
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:At least Ogmius's position seems to be explicitly opposed to the left-wing one (in that he seems to basically be fine with unpaid internships existing), as opposed to making some tortured attempt at justifying them within a left-wing ideological framework. Sure, but bloated overhead is a much less efficient means of extracting surplus value so I’m generally less worried about it. Moreover, even when non profit salaries become very high they aren’t usually competitive with profit enterprises of a similar scope. In general I’m more concerned about giving nonprofits more flexibility to accomplish their work because the work is often good.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2019 19:56
|
|
|
twodot posted:The whole contention is whether people will be treated like criminals, if you insist on lasering on minutiae that has nothing to do with how people will be treated, you're the one being obtuse regarding what the actual conversation is. Trivial minutiae like “whether something is a crime or not.”
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 05:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:If something isn't a crime, but the people who do the something wind up being treated like criminals, then whether or not something is a crime is indeed trivial minutiae for the purpose of discussing whether people who do the something wind up being treated like criminals. Well, people aren’t generally locked in cages awaiting civil hearings. They generally aren’t separated from their children pending the outcome of civil enforcement actions. The existence of the crime has had real practical and legal consequences for immigrants and you’re coming off as ignorant of that.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 05:57
|
|
|
twodot posted:The question isn't "Does this have consequences?" it's "Are civil offenders treated like criminals?" and civil offenders are forcibly subjected to court systems, and legal consequences for their actions that violate government code, so if your contention that isn't being treated like a criminal because they don't have pre-trial detention (despite literal criminals having bail!?) then make it, but at least engage with the actual conversation. Personally, I’m fine with having a completely open border and letting anyone come who wants to, subject to basic security checks (I had that opinion long before the self-righteous left did, by the way; I vividly recall when Hillary Clinton was pilloried by Bernie supporters for momentarily seeming to call for open borders). However, there isn’t really much constituency for that policy. I think there are middle ground policies that allow for some border enforcement and immigration control without the disgusting human rights abuses that are presently occurring. A good first step would be to decriminalize border crossing (which would end the camps and the family separations). A good second step would be to loosen up the asylum rules so that it can granted to more people. A good third step would be to expand the number of immigrants that can legally come to the us. There are probably other good steps to take after that too short of open borders. But while there are still immigration restrictions, some people will be “exposed” to the court system. That’s how it works.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 06:23
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Wait, what? Bernie attacked Hillary because she was for open borders? What kind of dumbass nonsense is this? I edited that because she didn’t actually call for open borders. She said something that sounded a bit like calling for open borders, and then a bunch of Bernie people freaked out because in 2016 protectionism was in vogue on the left.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 06:33
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Ah, yes. That is why Bernie was attacking Clinton on child deportations and had signed the fix96 resolution (which Clinton never supported or acknowledged). I hasten to clarify that by “Bernie people” I meant Bernie supporters on this forum, not Bernie himself.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 06:47
|
|
|
Edit: fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 06:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Torts harm people, by definition. All legal distinctions are ultimately “imaginary”. Moreover, not all torts require damages as an element. Further, I note that even the most permissive immigration system will result in people being “exposed to the court system.” Presumably there would still be some rules (some known security risks will be excluded, people with certain medical conditions might need treatment before admission, certain agricultural products need to be controlled, things like that) and those rules would have to be enforced somehow. Pretending that there is no difference between criminal prosecutions and civil enforcement actions but “the letters in the word” because both involve a court is super wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 15:20
|
|
|
Lol why on earth shouldn’t employers consider educational background in hiring decisions? Left wing anti-intellectualism strikes again.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:sir this is an arby's On the very last page someone suggested it should be an illegal hiring practice to prefer candidates with a degree. Seriously?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2019 23:57
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:1) the amount of student loan debt someone is in is abusable by an employer: a more deeply indebted employee is less likely to quit on short notice, ruffle feathers, ask for a raise, and so on 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2019 01:23
|
|
|
Yeah white people without college degrees are well known for their rational decision making and forward thinking attitudes. I think we should have more of them, and in positions of power too!
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2019 02:19
|
|
|
BENGHAZI 2 posted:Who said positions of power Here’s an interesting fact: “most” jobs do not require a degree! Congratulations this ideal world is actually the status quo! You’ve already won! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2019 02:37
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Most jobs do require at least some post-HS education. Only 36% of jobs are even open to accept applications from people with just a HS degree. So just a bit more than a third of jobs actually require a degree, and there are still way more non-degree jobs than jobs that are only for degree holders. Well more than a third of jobs are open to those who are only high school graduates. So it’s obviously a ridiculous exaggeration to say that one must have a bachelor’s degree to get a job. There are vast numbers of jobs that do not require one, including a huge quantity of jobs that can be obtained with only a high school diploma.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
All of this of course dances around the real point, which is that you don’t think that a degree is a plus. Well, employers don’t agree with you. If you legislate away an employer’s ability to have that preference, you will only make hiring more arbitrary. I understand you don’t really value education, hence, anti-intellectualism, like I said. Employers like education because it helps people see and understand nuance. You know what? I think I understand why leftists don’t see much use for it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2019 02:58
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:Beto takes one last stab at dominating the news cycle  this guy.Frankly he’s been done for months. It’s just been even more clear since the debate.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2019 04:09
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I like how you're completely ignoring the fact that PoC (well, black and hispanic Americans anyways) are less likely to have gone to college and that privileging degree-holding has the practical effect of just reinforcing the racial gap in employment outcomes. There’s a better solution to this problem than hiring under qualified non-grads though, and most companies are already using it: consider diversity as a plus in the hiring process.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2019 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 18:35 |
|
|
Tir McDohl posted:Given that he's one of the only candidates explicitly supporting reparations I can't exactly see how admitting this should be a bad thing, really. It’s a ridiculous attempt to draw attention to himself by exploiting the fact that his ancestors were lovely people. It’s a desperate attempt by a fading candidate to change the conversation.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 15, 2019 04:56
|
|