you're correct. 100% of republicans are corporate stooges and 99% of democrats are.

false equivalence smashed. really fucking got me bud.

it's honestly not about 'gotcha moment', it's about some nuance on this topic, about acknowledging that it's exclusively one side where you see movement in the right direction on that issue, and it's neither helpful nor honest to outright dismiss that as pure 'pandering'.

your sarcastic 100% vs. 99% 'concession' only applies to the senate. you're ignoring both the house, as well as all the progressive candidates running for various offices all over the nation.


to me it just seems like you don't want to acknowledge that because it undermines the 'both sides are equally shitty' narrative, but feel free to correct me on that before this blows up into another pointless personal skirmish.

The Democrats are the only side I have hope currently making changes. I just don't have hope that they'll get changed, nor that most of the Democrats want to cut off corporate money. Especially the dnc itself. Individuals? Sure, few and far between, but sure.

of course it seems unrealistic now, the system was successfully configured to prevent people who want to change it to ever get the power to do so. that makes it even more important to acknowledge and support the few that are trying to, rather than dismiss and smear them in the spirit of 'neutrality'.

the best thing that could happen in that regard would be a similar movement on the republican side, because it would make the whole thing less of a partisan issue, and elevate the conversation beyond the 'good guy - bad guy' question.

i don't even think that's entirely unrealistic. part of trump's appeal was to at least pretend he'd act on behalf of the average american, to do away with the almost exclusively corporate driven policy making of previous administrations. sure, to most people it was blatantly obvious that those would be empty promises, but it still illustrates that there is a real desire for that on both sides. so maybe under a less divisive leadership, that idea could gain traction as a political movement on the right as well...

The tea party had a lot of grass roots support. It certainly can and has happened on both sides just not to much overall effect. When I see Biden go back on his promise and Warren make a primary only promise I don't have faith in top down movement. Bernie is the only real hope I see right now at all. And with how he blessed to the dnc after the screwed him I don't see him pressuring his institution. Its more of a change by inspiration thing.

biden was never even remotely trustworthy on that issue, it was pandering from the moment he addressed it, and literally everyone and their dog knew it.

warren i honestly see a little more nuanced - i think it's entirely possible that she does it for practical reasons, but still would still be a positive influence on that issue as a president. do i like it? no, there's always some implied favour and expectation, no matter how carefully you 'vet' your donors, or how genuine your initial intentions might be, but to me that doesn't outright disqualify her considering the little choice there is to begin with. then again, i would have said the same about obama and be proven largely wrong...

Bit her on the ass lol.

Seems like she should have showed up for work in the last few months of her campaign.

well Slick Willie and Barack Obama went there to campaign on her behalf, and both warned Hillary to campaign more in those areas due to Trump's high-energy campaign schedule, but clearly she knew better than both those losers who never won the Presidency twice or anything like that

This post was edited by excellence on Nov 7 2019 06:58pm

wow.

Michael Bloomberg is joining race

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/03/18/hillary-clinton-doesnt-need-white-men/

the article even (unironically) comes with the perfectly fitting header image: