warren support seems like much more of a """cult of personality""" to me than sanders support, but also all arguments about cults of personality are goofy bullshit
This post seems much more like an "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument than anything else.
If you think that arguments about CoP are BS, why are you making that argument against Warren? It makes no sense.
What's innately bad about a cult of personality? Every single candidate has one.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I personally feel like cult of personality is a term best reserved for things like "I could shoot someone in broad daylight and they'd still support me" levels of cult-dom.
None of the Democratic candidates really reach that level of loyalty. Some individuals following them maybe, but not a substantial number of their support to warrant the term.
Plame said she wanted a visible and audible warning when Jewish people are on tv, like drug commercials, and blamed Jewish people for Republican interventionism.
Her defense is that she's totally got Jewish blood. CIA bad.
I don’t think cults of personality are “goofy bullshit” in a world where Donald J. Trump is President despite being Donald J. Trump.
I’m sure there are Warren supporters who have “drunk the Kool-Aid,” the same as any major politician, but I haven’t seen Warren supporters write attack pieces on candidates with identical policies for not being Warren.
I support Warren’s policy proposals, which pretty much means I support Bernie’s. I just think she’s more likely to get it done.
Personal Opinion on Warren/Sanders/Democratic Hypocrisy Somewhat Off-Topic
On a personal level I’m pretty neutral on Warren. She’s a rich white lady who’s lived with the social elite since before I was born. She has apparently managed not to wear blackface or take out full-page ads calling black criminal defendants animals. What she is or isn’t like behind closed doors is something we’ll never know if she maintains basic competence.
I dislike Bernie. Partly it’s because his tactics remind me too much of Trump—and I doubt good can come from those tactics. Mostly it’s because of his comments following the 2018 gubernatorial elections in Florida and Georgia. The fact that he got away with it is yet another example of Democrats/Leftists ignoring racism within their own ranks because it interferes with the narrative that they are inherently anti-racist. If any Republican had said that, the left would’ve (rightly) torn them a new one. As they would have if a Republican governor had been caught in blackface and lied about it.
Those are my feelings. And you know what? They are irrelevant. We are not going to feel our way out of this problem. Pretending otherwise is asinine. I dislike Bernie. If he is the nominee, I’ll vote for him in a heartbeat. The GOP, as it exists, is an existential threat to the United States and potentially an existential threat to this planet. Any other consideration is secondary.
Plame said she wanted a visible and audible warning when Jewish people are on tv, like drug commercials, and blamed Jewish people for Republican interventionism.
Her defense is that she's totally got Jewish blood. CIA bad.
She's also not running for President, which makes this no-sources, flip a coin on it being made up bullshit also irrelevant to the conversation.
Plame said she wanted a visible and audible warning when Jewish people are on tv, like drug commercials, and blamed Jewish people for Republican interventionism.
Her defense is that she's totally got Jewish blood. CIA bad.
What are you talking about? Link to article? And what does it have to do with the Presidential primaries?
+12
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
Plame said she wanted a visible and audible warning when Jewish people are on tv, like drug commercials, and blamed Jewish people for Republican interventionism.
Her defense is that she's totally got Jewish blood. CIA bad.
I've been unable to verify any of the stuff you've just posted here via a few Google searches, care to provide some kind of citation for any of them?
D&D is a pretty structured forum. Generally speaking, the mods have a hard enough time keeping us all corralled and on-topic. There may be a thread for politics of a given state (I know VA and Washington have pretty active ones, California pops up every now and again, there's probably others) which it may fit in, but otherwise we'll probably only have a primary thread for the Presidency, and then closer to the election itself will probably have a separate one for Congress and state-level elections.
They probably posted here thinking that this was all Dem Primaries. Plame is running in NM. She was the spy leaked by Scooter Libby. She has been on record with some very anti-Semitic views in the past. She released an ad of her driving a car like spies in movies do and she running in NM Dem primary.
Hm, looks like there may be a funding issue that will affect the greater election in terms of Ms. Warren's campaign. It doesn't need to be said that this also affects Mr. Sanders, but perhaps less so since he's proved he can subsist on small money donors. I don't know much about Ms. Warren's campaign finance health prospects or if this is even something to worry about for her specifically.
Now things are interesting. I've always wondered about the effect of big money on the democratic party, and now we get to test it.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
I mean, I'd probably go for Tulsi over Biden, I guess?
But it's not any sort of real concern, because she's not going to win the nomination.
She's a former hard right-winger who has been moving left. That's great, I can identify with that. But she's nowhere near there yet, and her coziness with Assad and favorability from Putin's trolls makes her still a liability. She needs to bring her views of bombing campaigns and the like in line with her (relatively new) anti-war claims. That's the kind of sharp internal contradiction, on what she's using as her main platform and justification for running, that betrays a hard-right past that has not been fully reconciled.
At best, this Presidential run is about 8 years too early. If in 8 years she's as different from now as now vs 8-15 years ago, plus has some notable leadership credentials to show, I could see her being a strong candidate.
This more or less sums up my view.. I've been a fan of hers for quite a while, and although I did come across some squicky stuff reading about her last night, I feel like if she keeps going in the right direction she'll do big things. It's just too early for her.
One of the things I really like about her, among the other things I like about her, is that she is absolutely devoted to cleaning up abuse of all kinds at various levels found in the military, getting support of all kinds for people who need it, both veterans and still serving. I really hope she doesn't lose sight of that.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
Hm, looks like there may be a funding issue that will affect the greater election in terms of Ms. Warren's campaign. It doesn't need to be said that this also affects Mr. Sanders, but perhaps less so since he's proved he can subsist on small money donors. I don't know much about Ms. Warren's campaign finance health prospects or if this is even something to worry about for her specifically.
Now things are interesting. I've always wondered about the effect of big money on the democratic party, and now we get to test it.
They're both Senators.
Also not sure how this is news. The wealthy aren't going to give money to the two people who want to tax their wealth? Shocking.
Hm, looks like there may be a funding issue that will affect the greater election in terms of Ms. Warren's campaign. It doesn't need to be said that this also affects Mr. Sanders, but perhaps less so since he's proved he can subsist on small money donors. I don't know much about Ms. Warren's campaign finance health prospects or if this is even something to worry about for her specifically.
Now things are interesting. I've always wondered about the effect of big money on the democratic party, and now we get to test it.
Warren's cash flow in the last quarter puts her just behind Biden and Sanders but really close overall.
Hm, looks like there may be a funding issue that will affect the greater election in terms of Ms. Warren's campaign. It doesn't need to be said that this also affects Mr. Sanders, but perhaps less so since he's proved he can subsist on small money donors. I don't know much about Ms. Warren's campaign finance health prospects or if this is even something to worry about for her specifically.
Now things are interesting. I've always wondered about the effect of big money on the democratic party, and now we get to test it.
They're both Senators.
Also not sure how this is news. The wealthy aren't going to give money to the two people who want to tax their wealth? Shocking.
I kinda wonder if Corporations care. I have to admit I'm unsure if they're directly covered by it, which feels like an obvious loophole if not.
Hm, looks like there may be a funding issue that will affect the greater election in terms of Ms. Warren's campaign. It doesn't need to be said that this also affects Mr. Sanders, but perhaps less so since he's proved he can subsist on small money donors. I don't know much about Ms. Warren's campaign finance health prospects or if this is even something to worry about for her specifically.
Now things are interesting. I've always wondered about the effect of big money on the democratic party, and now we get to test it.
They're both Senators.
Also not sure how this is news. The wealthy aren't going to give money to the two people who want to tax their wealth? Shocking.
I'm wondering how this will affect things strategically if there is a large current and potential cash discrepancy between the Biden and Warren / Sanders campaigns. I wonder if people are actually going to cast their vote based on general election campaign finance worries in the primary. I also wonder if the democratic party is worried about this.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
1) Warren just casually dropped 8 figures on advertising and party building yesterday and has had the largest field staff for a long time, it's safe to say her 3Q fundraising totals will be just fine.
2) Some of those ads may literally just be images of the articles where big money is absolutely god damn terrified of her winning.
I remain unconcerned about Wall Street donors.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I personally feel like cult of personality is a term best reserved for things like "I could shoot someone in broad daylight and they'd still support me" levels of cult-dom.
None of the Democratic candidates really reach that level of loyalty. Some individuals following them maybe, but not a substantial number of their support to warrant the term.
Actually, I'm going to slightly amend this.
Yang has a bit of the beginnings of a cult of personality.
I realized how deep that well went about the time someone made an anime opening for his candidacy.
warren support seems like much more of a """cult of personality""" to me than sanders support, but also all arguments about cults of personality are goofy bullshit
This post seems much more like an "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument than anything else.
If you think that arguments about CoP are BS, why are you making that argument against Warren? It makes no sense.
It's the difference between
and
One of those is a lot more appealing to people who want to flatten hierarchy.
I mean, I'd probably go for Tulsi over Biden, I guess?
But it's not any sort of real concern, because she's not going to win the nomination.
She's a former hard right-winger who has been moving left. That's great, I can identify with that. But she's nowhere near there yet, and her coziness with Assad and favorability from Putin's trolls makes her still a liability. She needs to bring her views of bombing campaigns and the like in line with her (relatively new) anti-war claims. That's the kind of sharp internal contradiction, on what she's using as her main platform and justification for running, that betrays a hard-right past that has not been fully reconciled.
At best, this Presidential run is about 8 years too early. If in 8 years she's as different from now as now vs 8-15 years ago, plus has some notable leadership credentials to show, I could see her being a strong candidate.
As out of touch as biden is gabbard's background in the very recent past is way more problematic. If the option is her or trump I would have to vote for her but with as big of a field of candidates as we have we can do a lot better than gabbard.
warren support seems like much more of a """cult of personality""" to me than sanders support, but also all arguments about cults of personality are goofy bullshit
This post seems much more like an "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument than anything else.
If you think that arguments about CoP are BS, why are you making that argument against Warren? It makes no sense.
It's the difference between
...
One of those is a lot more appealing to people who want to flatten hierarchy.
warren support seems like much more of a """cult of personality""" to me than sanders support, but also all arguments about cults of personality are goofy bullshit
This post seems much more like an "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument than anything else.
If you think that arguments about CoP are BS, why are you making that argument against Warren? It makes no sense.
It's the difference between
...
One of those is a lot more appealing to people who want to flatten hierarchy.
Which?
No candidate running for president is trying to flatten hierarchy. They are running for the literal top of the hierarchy.
warren support seems like much more of a """cult of personality""" to me than sanders support, but also all arguments about cults of personality are goofy bullshit
This post seems much more like an "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument than anything else.
If you think that arguments about CoP are BS, why are you making that argument against Warren? It makes no sense.
It's the difference between
...
One of those is a lot more appealing to people who want to flatten hierarchy.
Which?
No candidate running for president is trying to flatten hierarchy. They are running for the literal top of the hierarchy.
Isnt this basically the "you want to change society but aha you actually are part of society" cartoon?
1) Warren just casually dropped 8 figures on advertising and party building yesterday and has had the largest field staff for a long time, it's safe to say her 3Q fundraising totals will be just fine.
2) Some of those ads may literally just be images of the articles where big money is absolutely god damn terrified of her winning.
I remain unconcerned about Wall Street donors.
Alright, then I won't worry about it
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Both Sanders and Warren are absolutely trying to alter the hierarchical nature of our society to be more fair. The idea that they aren't because they're running for president is ridiculous.
warren support seems like much more of a """cult of personality""" to me than sanders support, but also all arguments about cults of personality are goofy bullshit
This post seems much more like an "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument than anything else.
If you think that arguments about CoP are BS, why are you making that argument against Warren? It makes no sense.
It's the difference between
...
One of those is a lot more appealing to people who want to flatten hierarchy.
Which?
No candidate running for president is trying to flatten hierarchy. They are running for the literal top of the hierarchy.
Isnt this basically the "you want to change society but aha you actually are part of society" cartoon?
Pretty much. It is a lot of people putting their own wishes onto somebody who is really not saying anything like that at all and certainly not acting that way. I like a lot of what bernie says but his grumpy old dude who does not play nice with others schtick tends to be self defeating. When people see warren and him both kinda running along the same track a lot of them are going to warren because she overall is a lot more of a positive type person. She also cultivates enough contacts in the dem party machine so she is not totally getting shiv'ed by the insiders. If you are trying to win a party's nomination not alienating large chunks of that party seems um like good politics? But if you read about how exasperated the obama team was getting with her for the creation of the consumer protection bureau you will see when she really believes in something she will play the hardest ball even against people who are normally allies.
I mean, I'd probably go for Tulsi over Biden, I guess?
But it's not any sort of real concern, because she's not going to win the nomination.
She's a former hard right-winger who has been moving left. That's great, I can identify with that. But she's nowhere near there yet, and her coziness with Assad and favorability from Putin's trolls makes her still a liability. She needs to bring her views of bombing campaigns and the like in line with her (relatively new) anti-war claims. That's the kind of sharp internal contradiction, on what she's using as her main platform and justification for running, that betrays a hard-right past that has not been fully reconciled.
At best, this Presidential run is about 8 years too early. If in 8 years she's as different from now as now vs 8-15 years ago, plus has some notable leadership credentials to show, I could see her being a strong candidate.
As out of touch as biden is gabbard's background in the very recent past is way more problematic. If the option is her or trump I would have to vote for her but with as big of a field of candidates as we have we can do a lot better than gabbard.
And, judging by her poll numbers, we never need to make that choice. :P
Personally I'm soured against Gabbard by an annoying Facebook friend who keeps posting dubious memes about how the establishment is against Tulsi and if she isn't the nominee, it's a DNC conspiracy and we should not vote at all.
Now, it could be that she's not behind this at all, but as far as I can tell, she's happy to take the help.
CelestialBadger on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Posts
This post seems much more like an "I'm rubber and you're glue" argument than anything else.
If you think that arguments about CoP are BS, why are you making that argument against Warren? It makes no sense.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The term insinuates a person is just looks/charisma rather than substance such as policy.
Yes, the American political system makes it necessary to have a cult of personality to win. “Charisma” is a nicer way of putting it.
None of the Democratic candidates really reach that level of loyalty. Some individuals following them maybe, but not a substantial number of their support to warrant the term.
Her defense is that she's totally got Jewish blood. CIA bad.
I’m sure there are Warren supporters who have “drunk the Kool-Aid,” the same as any major politician, but I haven’t seen Warren supporters write attack pieces on candidates with identical policies for not being Warren.
I support Warren’s policy proposals, which pretty much means I support Bernie’s. I just think she’s more likely to get it done.
Personal Opinion on Warren/Sanders/Democratic Hypocrisy Somewhat Off-Topic
I dislike Bernie. Partly it’s because his tactics remind me too much of Trump—and I doubt good can come from those tactics. Mostly it’s because of his comments following the 2018 gubernatorial elections in Florida and Georgia. The fact that he got away with it is yet another example of Democrats/Leftists ignoring racism within their own ranks because it interferes with the narrative that they are inherently anti-racist. If any Republican had said that, the left would’ve (rightly) torn them a new one. As they would have if a Republican governor had been caught in blackface and lied about it.
Those are my feelings. And you know what? They are irrelevant. We are not going to feel our way out of this problem. Pretending otherwise is asinine. I dislike Bernie. If he is the nominee, I’ll vote for him in a heartbeat. The GOP, as it exists, is an existential threat to the United States and potentially an existential threat to this planet. Any other consideration is secondary.
She's also not running for President, which makes this no-sources, flip a coin on it being made up bullshit also irrelevant to the conversation.
What are you talking about? Link to article? And what does it have to do with the Presidential primaries?
I've been unable to verify any of the stuff you've just posted here via a few Google searches, care to provide some kind of citation for any of them?
I don't know what this routine is about, but keep it on the dem primary or leave.
D&D is a pretty structured forum. Generally speaking, the mods have a hard enough time keeping us all corralled and on-topic.
Now things are interesting. I've always wondered about the effect of big money on the democratic party, and now we get to test it.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This more or less sums up my view.. I've been a fan of hers for quite a while, and although I did come across some squicky stuff reading about her last night, I feel like if she keeps going in the right direction she'll do big things. It's just too early for her.
One of the things I really like about her, among the other things I like about her, is that she is absolutely devoted to cleaning up abuse of all kinds at various levels found in the military, getting support of all kinds for people who need it, both veterans and still serving. I really hope she doesn't lose sight of that.
They're both Senators.
Also not sure how this is news. The wealthy aren't going to give money to the two people who want to tax their wealth? Shocking.
Warren's cash flow in the last quarter puts her just behind Biden and Sanders but really close overall.
https://www.politico.com/2020-election/president/democratic-primary/candidates/fundraising-and-campaign-finance-tracker/
I kinda wonder if Corporations care. I have to admit I'm unsure if they're directly covered by it, which feels like an obvious loophole if not.
I'm wondering how this will affect things strategically if there is a large current and potential cash discrepancy between the Biden and Warren / Sanders campaigns. I wonder if people are actually going to cast their vote based on general election campaign finance worries in the primary. I also wonder if the democratic party is worried about this.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
1) Warren just casually dropped 8 figures on advertising and party building yesterday and has had the largest field staff for a long time, it's safe to say her 3Q fundraising totals will be just fine.
2) Some of those ads may literally just be images of the articles where big money is absolutely god damn terrified of her winning.
I remain unconcerned about Wall Street donors.
Actually, I'm going to slightly amend this.
Yang has a bit of the beginnings of a cult of personality.
I realized how deep that well went about the time someone made an anime opening for his candidacy.
and
One of those is a lot more appealing to people who want to flatten hierarchy.
As out of touch as biden is gabbard's background in the very recent past is way more problematic. If the option is her or trump I would have to vote for her but with as big of a field of candidates as we have we can do a lot better than gabbard.
Which?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
No candidate running for president is trying to flatten hierarchy. They are running for the literal top of the hierarchy.
Isnt this basically the "you want to change society but aha you actually are part of society" cartoon?
Alright, then I won't worry about it
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Pretty much. It is a lot of people putting their own wishes onto somebody who is really not saying anything like that at all and certainly not acting that way. I like a lot of what bernie says but his grumpy old dude who does not play nice with others schtick tends to be self defeating. When people see warren and him both kinda running along the same track a lot of them are going to warren because she overall is a lot more of a positive type person. She also cultivates enough contacts in the dem party machine so she is not totally getting shiv'ed by the insiders. If you are trying to win a party's nomination not alienating large chunks of that party seems um like good politics? But if you read about how exasperated the obama team was getting with her for the creation of the consumer protection bureau you will see when she really believes in something she will play the hardest ball even against people who are normally allies.
And, judging by her poll numbers, we never need to make that choice. :P
Personally I'm soured against Gabbard by an annoying Facebook friend who keeps posting dubious memes about how the establishment is against Tulsi and if she isn't the nominee, it's a DNC conspiracy and we should not vote at all.
Now, it could be that she's not behind this at all, but as far as I can tell, she's happy to take the help.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
Hes arguing their campaign slogans exemplify very different campaigns.