They're going full Mein Teil eh?
Advertisement
by Impaled Nazarene » Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:43 pm
Kiaculta wrote:Oh, Kar, you silly sack of shit.
Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Bickering ist krieg.
Infected Mushroom wrote:isn't this a bit extreme?
Finland SSR wrote:"Many dictatorships are oligarchies.
Many democracies are oligarchies.
Therefore, many dictatorships are democracies."
-said no one ever. I made these words up.
Genivaria wrote:"WHY!? Why do this!? Thousands of planets and trillions of innocent lives gone! For what!?"
"It seemed like fun at the time."
by Duhon » Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:49 pm
Shrillland wrote:And this is why people don't like Pelosi, we just keep her around because we have no one else to lead: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-warns-democrats-liberal-menace-ahead-2020-vote-211900281.html
by Washington Resistance Army » Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:49 pm
Hediacrana wrote:Shrillland wrote:And this is why people don't like Pelosi, we just keep her around because we have no one else to lead: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-warns-democrats-liberal-menace-ahead-2020-vote-211900281.html
First Obama, now her.
She is also trying to make sure that the Israeli government isn't criticized too harshly, in a time that finally, at least someof the Dems are at long last starting to move beyond blind support for whatever crimes against humanity it commits. That alone makes me want Sanders to win - at least he's not scared to distinguish between antisemitism and criticizing a far right government.
by Thuzbekistan » Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:49 pm
Ngelmish wrote:Page wrote:I find it quite amazing how many people, most of them conservatives but some liberals too, are pushing this narrative that only a centrist Democrat has a chance against Trump and that the further "left" candidates would fail. When given the choice between Republican or Republican Lite, voters will choose the Republican, or just stay home.
Hillary Clinton didn't lose in her "firewall" states because she was too far left. Quite the opposite. She lost because she didn't offer the people anything of substance. The people who are rationing medicine and checking the status of a GoFundMe hoping they'll raise enough money to literally avoid dying didn't vote for Hillary because she thought Obamacare was enough and that single payer isn't necessary. Because those people realize neither Trump nor Clinton would do anything about the travesty of the American health care system. She lost because the people who lost their jobs to outsourcing realized she wasn't going to do a damn thing about it while Trump played populist - and although Trump's a liar and those people working for employers like Carrier had their jobs outsourced anyway, Hillary didn't even bother with the issue, she didn't even go to Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. She lost because people who remember their homes being foreclosed upon found out she gave paid speeches absolving the vile usurers of the mortgage industry and blamed the Great Recession on the victims of predatory lending. She lost because she supported the endless wars in countries that never attacked us cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars, while a great majority of Americans no longer want to spill blood and treasure in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and Libya. Don't forget Libya! She was convinced it was a great accomplishment to have overthrown Gaddafi. Now Libya is in a state of perpetual civil war, Islamist extremists operate with impunity, and slaves are sold in open markets.
If the nominee in 2020 makes a real commitment to single payer, a living wage, rebuilding infrastructure, creating renewable energy, absolving student loan debt, free college, and ending the wars, that nominee will win. If the nominee is a neoliberal centrist who thinks "America is already great", then say hello to 4 more years of spray tan stains on the White House furniture.
You do realize that your personal disagreements with the substance of what Clinton offered is literally the opposite of Clinton offering no substance?
I understand that the point of this canard is politics, and that politically you're incentivized to deploy hyperbole, but there's a point at which blatant dishonesty runs counter to the premise of offering ethical politics.
by Shrillland » Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:52 pm
Duhon wrote:Shrillland wrote:And this is why people don't like Pelosi, we just keep her around because we have no one else to lead: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-warns-democrats-liberal-menace-ahead-2020-vote-211900281.html
I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.
by Thuzbekistan » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:05 pm
by San Lumen » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:29 pm
Duhon wrote:Shrillland wrote:And this is why people don't like Pelosi, we just keep her around because we have no one else to lead: https://www.yahoo.com/news/pelosi-warns-democrats-liberal-menace-ahead-2020-vote-211900281.html
I fail to see what's wrong with her statement.
by Gormwood » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:35 pm
by Hediacrana » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:38 pm
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Hediacrana wrote:First Obama, now her.
She is also trying to make sure that the Israeli government isn't criticized too harshly, in a time that finally, at least someof the Dems are at long last starting to move beyond blind support for whatever crimes against humanity it commits. That alone makes me want Sanders to win - at least he's not scared to distinguish between antisemitism and criticizing a far right government.
Sanders has some super shitty views on Israel too. Some Dems are starting to move in the right direction about that country, but Sanders isn't one of them.
by Washington Resistance Army » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:55 pm
Hediacrana wrote:Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Sanders has some super shitty views on Israel too. Some Dems are starting to move in the right direction about that country, but Sanders isn't one of them.
What statements by Sanders are you referring to? As far as I know, he's one of the preciously few American politicians who called the Israeli government out for its war crimes against Palestinian citizens.
If a two-state solution fails, Takruri asked Sanders, would he support “one-state with equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians alike, and equal citizenship?”
“No, I don’t,” he said. “I mean, I think if that happens, then that would be the end of the state of Israel, and I support Israel’s right to exist.”
Hediacrana wrote:And are any of those Democrats who, in your words, are moving in the right direction on Israel among the 2020 contenders? Because I have a hard time coming up with anyone doing a better job than Sanders. Apart from Buttigieg and Booker, who are simply pro-Israel, all others have avoided taking a clear position, just sharing platitudes about the special relationship between Israel and the States and about a two state solution.
by Juristonia » Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:17 am
Ifreann wrote:Indeed, as far as I can recall only one poster has ever supported legalising bestiality, and he was fucking his cat and isn't welcome here any more, in no small part, I imagine, because he kept going on about how he was fucking his cat.
by Liriena » Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:31 am
I am: A pansexual, pantheist, green socialist An aspiring writer and journalist | Political compass stuff: Economic Left/Right: -8.13 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.92 For: Grassroots democracy, workers' self-management, humanitarianism, pacifism, pluralism, environmentalism, interculturalism, indigenous rights, minority rights, LGBT+ rights, feminism, optimism Against: Nationalism, authoritarianism, fascism, conservatism, populism, violence, ethnocentrism, racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBT+ bigotry, death penalty, neoliberalism, tribalism, cynicism ⚧Copy and paste this in your sig if you passed biology and know gender and sex aren't the same thing.⚧ |
by Juristonia » Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:34 am
Liriena wrote:Tucker Carlson is horny on main
Ifreann wrote:Indeed, as far as I can recall only one poster has ever supported legalising bestiality, and he was fucking his cat and isn't welcome here any more, in no small part, I imagine, because he kept going on about how he was fucking his cat.
by The Black Forrest » Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:48 am
by Impaled Nazarene » Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:58 am
Liriena wrote:Tucker Carlson is horny on main
Kiaculta wrote:Oh, Kar, you silly sack of shit.
Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Bickering ist krieg.
Infected Mushroom wrote:isn't this a bit extreme?
Finland SSR wrote:"Many dictatorships are oligarchies.
Many democracies are oligarchies.
Therefore, many dictatorships are democracies."
-said no one ever. I made these words up.
Genivaria wrote:"WHY!? Why do this!? Thousands of planets and trillions of innocent lives gone! For what!?"
"It seemed like fun at the time."
by Ifreann » Wed Apr 17, 2019 10:33 am
Liriena wrote:Tucker Carlson is horny on main
by Hakons » Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:40 am
by Zurkerx » Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:42 am
Eternal Lotharia wrote:Zurkerx wrote:Oh, here's also what the candidates have raised, spent, have on hands: All Broken Down For You
Oh grateful Eternal Lotharia, please link this in the OP so we can track and scrutinize everyone's campaigns, por favor.
*leaves plate of cookies with chocolate milk.
Done.
Thank you, I love Choco Chip with Chocolate Milk.
If you need me though, leaving Burgers, Chicken Wings, or Fried Chicken are your best choices.
by Telconi » Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:47 am
by Hakons » Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:47 am
Shrillland wrote:Impaled Nazarene wrote:"But he rebuilt South Bend"
At the expense of the minority populations.
A black Police Chief revealed racism and corruption in the SBPD. Buttigieg threw him under the bus.
Allows gentrification to go ham across the city.
Has done nothing to meaningfully help the black communities in South Bend.
Actually thinks he can use his sexuality to make people think he's not bigoted. Gay people can't be racist you know?
Source: Living in South Bend, Working with politicians in South Bend, being a campaign worker in South Bend, having good friends who have been harmed by Buttigieg's policies.
Well, he wasn't on my top list anyway.
by Shrillland » Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:52 am
Telconi wrote:Shrillland wrote:
To say that the Progressive message could be seen as a menace by voters is a little much when plenty of voters support those policies in the abstract, at least.
"Plenty" of people can support something (especially in the abstract) and yet the rest can still find it menacing.
by Telconi » Wed Apr 17, 2019 11:56 am
Shrillland wrote:Telconi wrote:
"Plenty" of people can support something (especially in the abstract) and yet the rest can still find it menacing.
Yes, but I mean that a lot of Democratic voters will still support Progressive candidates as long as they show that their policies will help them rather than just the "Militant Tendency" wing of the party that stays in its cities.
by Ism » Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:00 pm
by Telconi » Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:02 pm
Ism wrote:Hakons wrote:
If I remember right, he sees court-packing as a viable option, which is just constitutionally horrendous.
It’s more like court reform than court packing, I don’t know why they call it that. The idea he supports is focused on depoliticizing the Supreme Court, rather than stuffing it full of yes men.
by Valrifell » Wed Apr 17, 2019 12:04 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Arabia of Lawrence, Ariddia, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Galactic Powers, Post War America, Vassenor
Advertisement