I see Sanders demanding what we want and I see Warren asking for what she'd be willing to compromise down to. Ive had my fill of that already
I demand a billion dollars and immortality!
<waits>
"Demanding" something isn't a plan. Its not even a decent strategy. To demand something relies on the ability to enforce that demand, which requires power. A President, despite what Trump would have you believe, is not a dictator. Any President is going to have to work within the framework of the Constitution, international law, economics, science and politics. Warren presents plans the usually satisfy most of those constraints. That's not a compromise, except with reality.
Jesus Pants did you think I was saying Sanders would or should just ignore the legal system or something?
I don't have a strong understanding either way, but I think you've clearly misinterpreted the post here.
JPants is saying that Sanders' plan does ignore reality/the legal system, so acting like it's something you can count on or ask for or even use in your justification to support him doesn't make sense. Unless you yourself are similarly ignoring the facts.
As you've just agreed you're not, then the appropriate response would be to demonstrate how Sanders' plan is equally realistic to Warren's. Or not if you don't want to continue the conversation, *shrug*
I see Sanders demanding what we want and I see Warren asking for what she'd be willing to compromise down to. Ive had my fill of that already
I demand a billion dollars and immortality!
<waits>
"Demanding" something isn't a plan. Its not even a decent strategy. To demand something relies on the ability to enforce that demand, which requires power. A President, despite what Trump would have you believe, is not a dictator. Any President is going to have to work within the framework of the Constitution, international law, economics, science and politics. Warren presents plans the usually satisfy most of those constraints. That's not a compromise, except with reality.
Jesus Pants did you think I was saying Sanders would or should just ignore the legal system or something?
I don't have a strong understanding either way, but I think you've clearly misinterpreted the post here.
JPants is saying that Sanders' plan does ignore reality/the legal system, so acting like it's something you can count on or ask for or even use in your justification to support him doesn't make sense. Unless you yourself are similarly ignoring the facts.
As you've just agreed you're not, then the appropriate response would be to demonstrate how Sanders' plan is equally realistic to Warren's. Or not if you don't want to continue the conversation, *shrug*
Warren's plan, as described my it's backers, starts off as a compromise. I think Sanders will have to settle for less that full relief, but starting from that point will yield better results that giving up on things before you even start.
sanders plan of "get a lot of people mad and voting" is the most realistic one tbh
It’s really not, his idea that he will be able to build such a grassroots movement to just make his agenda come to fruition based on public pressure is just not going to work.
Gun control legislation has something like 70% approval from the US public and nothing has been done to make anything better.
I am really tired of billionaires just buying their way into places they have no business being.
While I appreciate what the DNC was trying to do, they need to fine tune this debate process so that ultimately this two debate stuff doesn't survive past the first round and by the fall the single stage has a reasonable amount of people on it.
In a normal world, the DNC wouldn't have had to set gameable criteria up. However, voters have been poisoned against it and believe it "rigs" primaries so they had to negotiate with certain parties to set up an objective a standard as possible. Thus the Yang Gang, Tulsi's Russians, Williamson's loons, and Steyer's billions let them game their way in.
This is a deeply anti-democratic take. If a person has enough people to support them then they get to represent that cohort in the democratic process.
any democratic plan that's any good isn't just going to have to get through mcconnell and the supreme court, it's going to have to get past your delaneys and hickenloooers, pelosi and schumer
not being on the right side of these issues needs to become costly or politically untenable or we will get nothing but "small business owner in economically disadvantaged regions" change
I am really tired of billionaires just buying their way into places they have no business being.
While I appreciate what the DNC was trying to do, they need to fine tune this debate process so that ultimately this two debate stuff doesn't survive past the first round and by the fall the single stage has a reasonable amount of people on it.
In a normal world, the DNC wouldn't have had to set gameable criteria up. However, voters have been poisoned against it and believe it "rigs" primaries so they had to negotiate with certain parties to set up an objective a standard as possible. Thus the Yang Gang, Tulsi's Russians, Williamson's loons, and Steyer's billions let them game their way in.
This is a deeply anti-democratic take. If a person has enough people to support them then they get to represent that cohort in the democratic process.
Most of those people are polling around the margin of error of 0. It's questionable if they have any significant amount of support.
I am really tired of billionaires just buying their way into places they have no business being.
While I appreciate what the DNC was trying to do, they need to fine tune this debate process so that ultimately this two debate stuff doesn't survive past the first round and by the fall the single stage has a reasonable amount of people on it.
In a normal world, the DNC wouldn't have had to set gameable criteria up. However, voters have been poisoned against it and believe it "rigs" primaries so they had to negotiate with certain parties to set up an objective a standard as possible. Thus the Yang Gang, Tulsi's Russians, Williamson's loons, and Steyer's billions let them game their way in.
This is a deeply anti-democratic take. If a person has enough people to support them then they get to represent that cohort in the democratic process.
I don't think I'm much in favor of a true democratic process after the last four years
+3
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
it continues to be creepy when y'all say shit like "only the right kind of people should get to run for president"
+16
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
If you win the Presidency based on promising impossible unicorns, then when you don't deliver on those promises a good sized portion of the people who voted for you will choose to not vote for you or your party the next time around.
Every single presidential candidate needs to be extremely, brutally clear that they need a majority in both chambers of Congress if there's any chance they'll be able to do anything. That they need to get rid of the filibuster if there's going to be any chance of anything passing. The more they act like "they alone can fix it," the more the country will blame them for not delivering.
I think if you expect people to vote straight blue no matter who you better be willing to accept a very messy primary process with a lot of voices.
Why do the left keep saying "vote blue no matter who" it's a very strange phrase I've never heard out of this context. Where does it come from?
Republicans tend to grit their teeth and pull the R lever no matter what. The saying comes because Democrats probably need to start doing the same thing to avoid more damage to the country.
it continues to be creepy when y'all say shit like "only the right kind of people should get to run for president"
As with anything, context matters more than pithy quips. Because letting everyone run is how you end up in a Trump situation. Fools should never be permitted on the stage, even if they have the support of other fools, and when you're peddling dark psychic energy you are a goddamn fool.
it continues to be creepy when y'all say shit like "only the right kind of people should get to run for president"
As with anything, context matters more than pithy quips. Because letting everyone run is how you end up in a Trump situation. Fools should never be permitted on the stage, even if they have the support of other fools, and when you're peddling dark psychic energy you are a goddamn fool.
God help us if someone like Perez ever gets to decide who is a fool.
I think if you expect people to vote straight blue no matter who you better be willing to accept a very messy primary process with a lot of voices.
Why do the left keep saying "vote blue no matter who" it's a very strange phrase I've never heard out of this context. Where does it come from?
Republicans tend to grit their teeth and pull the R lever no matter what. The saying comes because Democrats probably need to start doing the same thing to avoid more damage to the country.
I've only ever heard that exact phrasing from the left mocking the concept (ie implying that they won't do such a thing if the blue is a who that they don't like.)
I think if you expect people to vote straight blue no matter who you better be willing to accept a very messy primary process with a lot of voices.
Why do the left keep saying "vote blue no matter who" it's a very strange phrase I've never heard out of this context. Where does it come from?
Republicans tend to grit their teeth and pull the R lever no matter what. The saying comes because Democrats probably need to start doing the same thing to avoid more damage to the country.
I've only ever heard that exact phrasing from the left mocking the concept (ie implying that they won't do such a thing if the blue is a who that they don't like.)
Check out the reaction when I say I wont vote for Biden in the general
I think if you expect people to vote straight blue no matter who you better be willing to accept a very messy primary process with a lot of voices.
Why do the left keep saying "vote blue no matter who" it's a very strange phrase I've never heard out of this context. Where does it come from?
Republicans tend to grit their teeth and pull the R lever no matter what. The saying comes because Democrats probably need to start doing the same thing to avoid more damage to the country.
I've only ever heard that exact phrasing from the left mocking the concept (ie implying that they won't do such a thing if the blue is a who that they don't like.)
Check out the reaction when I say I wont vote for Biden in the general
You wouldn't?
+5
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
it continues to be creepy when y'all say shit like "only the right kind of people should get to run for president"
As with anything, context matters more than pithy quips. Because letting everyone run is how you end up in a Trump situation. Fools should never be permitted on the stage, even if they have the support of other fools, and when you're peddling dark psychic energy you are a goddamn fool.
it's good that you used this example because maryanne isn't getting into the next debate and that happened without some committee of superdelegates deciding she wasn't respectable enough
I am really tired of billionaires just buying their way into places they have no business being.
While I appreciate what the DNC was trying to do, they need to fine tune this debate process so that ultimately this two debate stuff doesn't survive past the first round and by the fall the single stage has a reasonable amount of people on it.
In a normal world, the DNC wouldn't have had to set gameable criteria up. However, voters have been poisoned against it and believe it "rigs" primaries so they had to negotiate with certain parties to set up an objective a standard as possible. Thus the Yang Gang, Tulsi's Russians, Williamson's loons, and Steyer's billions let them game their way in.
This is a deeply anti-democratic take. If a person has enough people to support them then they get to represent that cohort in the democratic process.
Most of those people are polling around the margin of error of 0. It's questionable if they have any significant amount of support.
If you can get two percent of people to support you, especially when your a local pol or a nobody, you deserve a shot to make a case to a bigger audience.
But at this point, after having that exposure and being put on the same stage as at least some of the front runners, you need to have either grown or need to get gone.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
it continues to be creepy when y'all say shit like "only the right kind of people should get to run for president"
Anybody can run.
The Democratic Party is a private club. They can absolutely set the rules on who qualifies to represent them.
I think a 4% aggregate polling rate is a good cutoff personally. If you can’t get 1 in 25 people to pick you GTFO.
nobody is confused about whether it's legal or whatever
Then what, pray tell, is your point?
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
Jay inslee is running explicitly and specifically with the aim of talking about climate change and it's good he's doing that
If tom perez got to nuke his run the way he's nuking a climate debate, that would be undesirable, and that's the kind of thing people are asking for when they say the party should be stomping on no-chance candidates
I just can't bring myself to watch any of the debates until the field gets cut down to, like, six.
Sitting through three hours of cable-news-produced drama and fanfare just to get 20 minutes, at most, of actual talking from any given candidate sounds like absolute Hellworld to me.
I just can't bring myself to watch any of the debates until the field gets cut down to, like, six.
Sitting through three hours of cable-news-produced drama and fanfare just to get 20 minutes, at most, of actual talking from any given candidate sounds like absolute Hellworld to me.
The first primary isn't until next year. You don't *have* to follow along obsessively.
I am really tired of billionaires just buying their way into places they have no business being.
While I appreciate what the DNC was trying to do, they need to fine tune this debate process so that ultimately this two debate stuff doesn't survive past the first round and by the fall the single stage has a reasonable amount of people on it.
In a normal world, the DNC wouldn't have had to set gameable criteria up. However, voters have been poisoned against it and believe it "rigs" primaries so they had to negotiate with certain parties to set up an objective a standard as possible. Thus the Yang Gang, Tulsi's Russians, Williamson's loons, and Steyer's billions let them game their way in.
This is a deeply anti-democratic take. If a person has enough people to support them then they get to represent that cohort in the democratic process.
1 - No they don't or else Trump would also have justification for this. He isn't deemed eligible by the party, which has the right to determine eligibility for contesting a nomination.
2 - Access to debates isn't some right. The role of the party is to choose the best candidate, not to give anyone who wants it a soapbox.
2 - No one has shown enough support because no one is voting yet. Even with the current set up its an approximation of factors they believe will limit the candidates to those who are most likely to garner the most support when it does. Choosing more subjective metrics would be just as reasonable and probably superior given that the current methods were gameable.
I just can't bring myself to watch any of the debates until the field gets cut down to, like, six.
Sitting through three hours of cable-news-produced drama and fanfare just to get 20 minutes, at most, of actual talking from any given candidate sounds like absolute Hellworld to me.
The first primary isn't until next year. You don't *have* to follow along obsessively.
I'm going to be honest, as a person who is slowly easing himself back into a lot of these various threads...I have no idea how you guys do it.
I have no idea how I used to do it, too. There's just so much anguish going on out there and we try to slot them into these individual threads and it's frequently the same people in many of the threads and it just feels so fucking dire. I'm not even judging whether it is or not! Just that I hope everyone is taking care of themselves.
Speaking of which, if any mod is ever near me (and I know one of you lives close to me, so this is a genuine standing offer) - beer on me if you feel like it because I remember what it was like moderating a community site and that's even without the tone that D&D threads tend to have.
I am really tired of billionaires just buying their way into places they have no business being.
While I appreciate what the DNC was trying to do, they need to fine tune this debate process so that ultimately this two debate stuff doesn't survive past the first round and by the fall the single stage has a reasonable amount of people on it.
In a normal world, the DNC wouldn't have had to set gameable criteria up. However, voters have been poisoned against it and believe it "rigs" primaries so they had to negotiate with certain parties to set up an objective a standard as possible. Thus the Yang Gang, Tulsi's Russians, Williamson's loons, and Steyer's billions let them game their way in.
This is a deeply anti-democratic take. If a person has enough people to support them then they get to represent that cohort in the democratic process.
1 - No they don't or else Trump would also have justification for this. He isn't deemed eligible by the party, which has the right to determine eligibility for contesting a nomination.
2 - Access to debates isn't some right. The role of the party is to choose the best candidate, not to give anyone who wants it a soapbox.
2 - No one has shown enough support because no one is voting yet. Even with the current set up its an approximation of factors they believe will limit the candidates to those who are most likely to garner the most support when it does. Choosing more subjective metrics would be just as reasonable and probably superior given that the current methods were gameable.
2 - Referring to everyone's supporters using cutesy derogatory names is childish and anti-democratic.
2 - Choosing more subjective metrics like picking the people that you like and think are most likely to be electable? I really don't get it.
Around the third debate, the criteria to get in should be much, much more strict than what we have. We have people getting in, not because they have good ideas or have a reasonable level of support. They are getting in because they are wealthy assholes, that dropped a shit ton of money to buy access. The democratic party really should be saying "fuck this noise of wealthy shitbirds buying access and influence into politics." I'd also argue we're probably passed the point where getting onto the debate stage will get these people more of a national profile. Yes, a fair chunk fo the public is tuned out, but I'm pretty sure a fair chunk of those tuned out people do so because they have no fucking interest in trying to follow the policy ideas of 6+ candidates. So it would behoove the democratic party to start winnowing the field down, so that some people don't go "how many candidates are still getting on the stage?" *looks down see 9-11* "fuck that, I'll tune back in when that number is more reasonable!" This setup also means, that we jsut really aren't getting a good glipse of candidate policy preferences on the stage because more candidates means less questions and it's a shitty setup that benefits wealthy assholes taht like to blow smoke up people's asses.
Posts
I don't have a strong understanding either way, but I think you've clearly misinterpreted the post here.
JPants is saying that Sanders' plan does ignore reality/the legal system, so acting like it's something you can count on or ask for or even use in your justification to support him doesn't make sense. Unless you yourself are similarly ignoring the facts.
As you've just agreed you're not, then the appropriate response would be to demonstrate how Sanders' plan is equally realistic to Warren's. Or not if you don't want to continue the conversation, *shrug*
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Now the DNC is scared to boot people like Williamson and Yang off the stage
Warren's plan, as described my it's backers, starts off as a compromise. I think Sanders will have to settle for less that full relief, but starting from that point will yield better results that giving up on things before you even start.
It’s really not, his idea that he will be able to build such a grassroots movement to just make his agenda come to fruition based on public pressure is just not going to work.
Gun control legislation has something like 70% approval from the US public and nothing has been done to make anything better.
not being on the right side of these issues needs to become costly or politically untenable or we will get nothing but "small business owner in economically disadvantaged regions" change
Most of those people are polling around the margin of error of 0. It's questionable if they have any significant amount of support.
I don't think I'm much in favor of a true democratic process after the last four years
Anybody can run.
The Democratic Party is a private club. They can absolutely set the rules on who qualifies to represent them.
I think a 4% aggregate polling rate is a good cutoff personally. If you can’t get 1 in 25 people to pick you GTFO.
Every single presidential candidate needs to be extremely, brutally clear that they need a majority in both chambers of Congress if there's any chance they'll be able to do anything. That they need to get rid of the filibuster if there's going to be any chance of anything passing. The more they act like "they alone can fix it," the more the country will blame them for not delivering.
Why do the left keep saying "vote blue no matter who" it's a very strange phrase I've never heard out of this context. Where does it come from?
Messy is fine. The current criteria still suck.
...hell I think technically Trump could get on the stage under the current criteria.
Though to be fair I guess Bullock does spend a lot of time on campaign finance.
It's the first I've heard the phrasing but the sentiment definitely exists.
Republicans tend to grit their teeth and pull the R lever no matter what. The saying comes because Democrats probably need to start doing the same thing to avoid more damage to the country.
As with anything, context matters more than pithy quips. Because letting everyone run is how you end up in a Trump situation. Fools should never be permitted on the stage, even if they have the support of other fools, and when you're peddling dark psychic energy you are a goddamn fool.
God help us if someone like Perez ever gets to decide who is a fool.
I've only ever heard that exact phrasing from the left mocking the concept (ie implying that they won't do such a thing if the blue is a who that they don't like.)
Check out the reaction when I say I wont vote for Biden in the general
nobody is confused about whether it's legal or whatever
You wouldn't?
it's good that you used this example because maryanne isn't getting into the next debate and that happened without some committee of superdelegates deciding she wasn't respectable enough
If you can get two percent of people to support you, especially when your a local pol or a nobody, you deserve a shot to make a case to a bigger audience.
But at this point, after having that exposure and being put on the same stage as at least some of the front runners, you need to have either grown or need to get gone.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Then what, pray tell, is your point?
If tom perez got to nuke his run the way he's nuking a climate debate, that would be undesirable, and that's the kind of thing people are asking for when they say the party should be stomping on no-chance candidates
Sitting through three hours of cable-news-produced drama and fanfare just to get 20 minutes, at most, of actual talking from any given candidate sounds like absolute Hellworld to me.
The first primary isn't until next year. You don't *have* to follow along obsessively.
1 - No they don't or else Trump would also have justification for this. He isn't deemed eligible by the party, which has the right to determine eligibility for contesting a nomination.
2 - Access to debates isn't some right. The role of the party is to choose the best candidate, not to give anyone who wants it a soapbox.
2 - No one has shown enough support because no one is voting yet. Even with the current set up its an approximation of factors they believe will limit the candidates to those who are most likely to garner the most support when it does. Choosing more subjective metrics would be just as reasonable and probably superior given that the current methods were gameable.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I'm going to be honest, as a person who is slowly easing himself back into a lot of these various threads...I have no idea how you guys do it.
I have no idea how I used to do it, too. There's just so much anguish going on out there and we try to slot them into these individual threads and it's frequently the same people in many of the threads and it just feels so fucking dire. I'm not even judging whether it is or not! Just that I hope everyone is taking care of themselves.
Speaking of which, if any mod is ever near me (and I know one of you lives close to me, so this is a genuine standing offer) - beer on me if you feel like it because I remember what it was like moderating a community site and that's even without the tone that D&D threads tend to have.
2 - Choosing more subjective metrics like picking the people that you like and think are most likely to be electable? I really don't get it.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.