Plant specifically implies "this person is a puppet of _______ put into the race to further someone else's agenda."
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
2020 Democratic Presidential Primary | OT2 | Warren's college tuition plan includes cancelling college debt
- Thread starter pigeon
- Start date
- Status
It has multiple meanings. Don't pretend you've never heard that word be used more as slang than the most charged possible use of it.
Who cares, clearly nobody because nobody quoted the post in question in the first place until I did! You can't shit up the discourse if nobody quotes the fucking thing in the first place.
And yes, despite what you maintain, it's a totally reasonable, logical outcome to come too to determine that he is a "plant" (even if i don't explicitly agree myself) given everything we've learned in the past week from that story about the meeting he held with party leadership behind closed doors. It is ABSOLUTELY a logical conclusion to draw even if you disagree, it doesn't make that poster a conspiracy theorist for positing it.
Did Bernie Sanders have a secret meeting in 2019 with Russians?
Enlighten me. The only other uses I've seen in common use are the green things that grow and "planting evidence".
Mod post - chill out
Official Staff Communication
Saying a candidate is a plant is a huge accusation, that said person entered the race to only attack or sabotage someone, in this case Bernie Sanders. Making such accusations without proof is nothing more than peddling in conspiracy theories and that has and will always be a bannable offense. We understand that posters will employ heated rhetoric from time to time, but we have to draw the line at conspiracy theories.
Theoretically and in a vacuum, of course everyone being able to own/live in the home/area of their dreams would reduce demand (there is no high demand for something that everyone already has) but in reality, there are socioeconomic (and logistical) forces at work that tend to prevent that from happening, like the ones mentioned in my previous posts (though those are just a few examples). But it's not just NIMBYism; there comes a point in urban planning where developers begin to project the effects of diseconomies of scale and will start to focus their development efforts on the qualities of amenities that are designed to attract an overall wealthier population, and will effectively raise the prices on housing in the area, despite the strong demand for housing in the area:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diseconomies_of_scale
And as I said before, urban development necessarily scales with increased housing, so developers are likely to consider city-size optimization in the planning process:
https://www.researchonline.mq.edu.au/vital/access/services/Download/mq:44742/SOURCE1
So yeah, without regulation, simply building more houses within city limits is naturally going to cause prices to rise, eventually, and this isn't even factoring other issues like zoning laws. Dealing with displacement is going to require a multi-pronged approach; there isn't a single magical solution, which is why Sanders proposed at least three when he was in South Carolina (as a former mayor, he probably knows a little something about dealing with displacement).
Last edited:
Maybe it's more accurate to say that it can be used as a half-true joke just as much as a fully charged accusation. There's also multiple situations which can fit the definition of that term. Some of which are more defensible than others. And the situation you're thinking about is driven by context in this case.
There's a plenty defensible situation to assume that word is referencing, and it's biased to assume an indefensible one over that one before even probing into what is being talked about.
I've noticed this pattern. Any POC that dares supports Bernie is mocked or called trash. Why is that?
Oh, please. Democrats going for some unknown Indiana mayor to stop Bernie makes 0 sense. He's only gathering support now because his campaign took off. The organiser of those meetings you're so worried about already said he's backing Biden.
Any attempt to push Buttigieg being an establishment plant or even to legitimise that idea is ridiculous and very concerning. This should be shot down any time someone hints otherwise.
It can't be used as a half-true joke, as it is 100% false. It can be used as a joke, but it wasn't here, as demonstrated by people here attempting to defend the notion as anything other than ridiculous.
User Banned (5 days): ignoring modpost and conspiracy theories
The proof was already talked about on this website extensively pretty recently.
Mod post - stay on topic
What we can or cannot do in this 2020 thread is pretty relevant to this 2020 thread.
Is this the article about Pete and the Democrats people are referring to? I assume this is on topic and discussion is allowed but mods please do correct me if I am wrong and I'll delete this.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/16/us/politics/bernie-sanders-democratic-party.html
"Any"?
Gray's being terrible is well documented-- Kirblar just posted her tweets signal boosting T***p's gaslighting. The "daddy Bernie" stuff is super weird and gross regardless of where it comes from but I mostly posted in response to the "abuela" knock to point out the hypocrisy of the situation. Nina Turner imo is problematic for many reasons. A couple of which include her handling of the Tezlyn Figaro mess (In Our Revolution, Turner kept and defended anti-immigrant Figaro who praised T***p for the travel ban) and that she continued to go negative on Clinton after the primary was settled during talk show appearances, etc.
Imo it's not great to imply that criticisms of bad hires are about race.
That's certainly allowed to discuss (and has been), but that's a GIGANTIC nutbar leap from "Mayor Pete talked to Dem Leaders" to "He's a plant to defeat Bernie"
But he's the only presidential candidate named who has met this group to discuss defeating Bernie, right?
and the only one who has started explicitly drawing comparisons between bernie and trump
Yeah. It doesn't seem like he was planted there from the beginning, but it does seem like he's now allied with more powerful people than him with the goal to advance their agenda. It's possible he may even do some things for those powerful people that he otherwise wouldn't. A puppet of democratic party leadership in the race to further someone else's agenda, if you will.
"Please don't imply I have some weird fixation on POC that align themselves with Bernie Sanders. Because I don't! I am just very obsessed with every single way I can personally act victimized by their statements and opinions."
It probably still qualifies as a gaffe if you say out loud the part you're supposed to whisper.
If Trumps attacks on Bernie end up seeming as desperate and stupid as the stuff that goes on here then I like his chances if we nominate him
Or we can nominate a lame costal moderate that the dem machine likes more and sit back and watch as Trump dunks on them everyday. Whichever
Or we can nominate a lame costal moderate that the dem machine likes more and sit back and watch as Trump dunks on them everyday. Whichever
(Warren) > Harris > Beto > Pete > Gillibrand > Booker > Bernard > Biden >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tootsie
I have Warren in parentheses because although she's my #1, she has no chance.
I'd only vote for Bernard over Biden and Tootsie, but if he gets the nomination I'll gladly fall in line. Ousting Trump should be the goal, regardless of nominee. Still don't have to like the sumbitch.
I have Warren in parentheses because although she's my #1, she has no chance.
I'd only vote for Bernard over Biden and Tootsie, but if he gets the nomination I'll gladly fall in line. Ousting Trump should be the goal, regardless of nominee. Still don't have to like the sumbitch.
Alright I'm calling just straight up bullshit.
The "democratic rank and file" overwhelmingly don't even know what the DSA even is. If you asked they'd probably think it's a branch of the DMV.
I have Warren number 1 temporarily because she said Dems should impeach. If you are too much of a coward to say Trump should be impeached I don't want you as president
Maybe not but you wanna know what they DO remember?
How you couldn't even put a banner of Hillary on your profile without getting mercilessly attacked. Had to go dark and literally hide their support from the people that were supposedly on their side.
Our first fuckig woman candidate and women had to celebrate support of her in secret.
That's utterly shameful
He said people lost trust in the system and turned to anti-establishment candidates on both sides of the political divide. One of them ended up winning the presidency and so here we are. Is that an inaccurate assessment?
That has literally nothing to do with anything I said.
It's baseless fear mongering to get one side to shut up and sit down.
The framing suggests that Bernie and Trump are two sides of the same coin. It was a very negative way to frame things and it was a pretty obvious attempt to paint himself as the better option.
All of the abuse I experienced for saying I would vote for Hillary in 2016 (in the general) came from people that would never support Bernie in the first place and were almost all Trump supporters in the end.
I won't argue that that kind of harassment didn't happen, but some people here wildly misplace where the vast majority of it came from. The primary itself was contentious but again, some people here really have short memories - 2008 was vicious in comparison.
I won't argue that that kind of harassment didn't happen, but some people here wildly misplace where the vast majority of it came from. The primary itself was contentious but again, some people here really have short memories - 2008 was vicious in comparison.
I actually don't think Trump would chew up Warren at all as a lot of people seem to suggest. All he's been able to do so far is call her Pocahontas, which plays really badly with everyone except his base. Warren is also a lot more effective at actually explaining policy to lay people and being convincing and persuasive about it. She doesn't back down from a fight, either, although sometimes to a fault (e.g. the DNA gaffe, although I think it's pretty clear she learned from that). I think we'll learn a lot about how she can perform in the primary debates. But if people keep saying things to the effect of "she's the best candidate, but she can't win because (something about electability)," then that can just become a self-fulfilling prophecy, and at that point we probably just don't deserve her, which is sad.
I also have worked hyper locally on political issues, both running field offices and as an organizer and canvasser, for longer than two years too (Though not explicitly within the dem party) Believe it or not despite being a "bernie bro" I am involved, even ran a field office for an independent expenditure operation supporting Hillary, and I have worked on the behalf of local candidates I believe in. There are just as many toxic members of the dem party (particularly low level dignataries) as there are the people you reference, probably more. Their toxicity usually manifests itself as gatekeeping, which your string of posts illustrates well.
Luckily, my experience speaking and listening to voters tells me that most don't give a rats behind what the democratic party apparatus thinks, and many find the concept that the merit of ideas or proposals should be judged based on the letter next to a candidates name ludicrous. Neither, is it wise to alienate a bloc of voters that frankly, you need to win. Furthermore your attitude is as divisive as any that Ive seen, and if that is your approach to trying to motivate Mr. Sanders to help you (not working or volunteering for the democratic party does not mean you are 'lazy' or that you don't participate) then it is little suprise that you haven't been very successful in your endeavors. Pot. Meet. Kettle.
so elizabeth warren supports a dictator who burns prisoners of war alive? so much for the tolerant left.
I've been on this for a while:
1. Warren
2. Buttigieg
...
Second Last. Klobuchar
Last. Gabbard
1. Warren
2. Buttigieg
...
Second Last. Klobuchar
Last. Gabbard
Warren -> Bernie -> Pete -> Beto -> ..... -> Biden -> Klobuchar -> Tulsi
Bernie's appeal lies in his economic policies, and Bernie has repeatedly stated that Trump won on the economy.
Pete deserves criticism for that statement because it downplays the blatant bigotry that led Trump to victory, not because he took two ideas that Bernie has expressed on multiple occasions and put them into one sentence.
Bernie's appeal lies in his economic policies, and Bernie has repeatedly stated that Trump won on the economy.
Pete deserves criticism for that statement because it downplays the blatant bigotry that led Trump to victory, not because he took two ideas that Bernie has expressed on multiple occasions and put them into one sentence.
- Status