|
Adventure Pigeon posted:It's a small lesson, but next time avoid shining the light on Lena Dunham, Lady Gaga, and their ilk. I doubt you could find two people that better embody the stereotype of a wealthy coastal liberal that doesn't understand or give a poo poo about anyone outside their bubble. Obama had lots of celebrity support but he won. It's about coopting those people with a message. The HRC campaign did not have a message
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
JOSÉ SARAMAGO’S SEEING TELLS THE STORY OF THE STRANGE EVENTS in the unnamed capital city of an unidentified democratic country. When the election day morning is marred by torrential rains, voter turnout is disturbingly low, but the weather breaks by mid-afternoon and the population heads en masse to their voting stations. The government's relief is short-lived, however, when vote counting reveals that over 70 percent of the ballots cast in the capital have been left blank. Baffled by this apparent civic lapse, the government gives the citizenry a chance to make amends just one week later with another election day. The results are worse: Now 83 percent of the ballots are blank. Is this an organized conspiracy to overthrow not just the ruling government but the entire democratic system? If so, who is behind it, and how did they manage to organize hundreds of thousands of people into such subversion without being noticed? The city continues to function near-normally throughout, the people parrying each of the government's thrusts in inexplicable unison and with a truly Gandhian level of nonviolent resistance. The lesson of this thought-experiment is clear: the danger today is not passivity but pseudo-activity, the urge to “be active,” to “participate,” in order to mask the vacuity of what goes on. People intervene all the time. People “do something.” Academics participate in meaningless debates, and so on. The truly difficult thing is to step back, to withdraw. Those in power often prefer even a “critical” participation, a dialogue, to silence, because just to engage us in dialogue, is to make sure our ominous passivity is broken. The voters’ abstention is thus a true political act: it forcefully confronts us with the vacuity of today’s democracies. This, exactly, is how citizens should act when faced with the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. When Stalin was asked in the late 1920s which deviation is worse, the Rightist one or the Leftist one, he snapped back: They are both worse! Is it not the same with the choice American voters are confronting in the 2016 presidential elections? Trump is obviously “worse.” He enacts a decay of public morality. He promises a Rightist turn. But he at least promises a change. Hillary is “worse” since she makes changing nothing look desirable. With such a choice, one should not lose ones nerve and chose the “worst,” which means change—even if is a dangerous change—because it opens up the space for a different more authentic change. The point is thus not to vote for Trump—not only should one not vote for such a scum, one should not even participate in such elections. The point is to approach coldly the question: Whose victory is better for the fate of the radical emancipatory project, Clinton’s or Trump’s? Trump wants to make America great again, to which Obama responded that America already is great. But is it? Can a country in which a person like Trump has a chance of becoming president be really considered great? The dangers of a Trump presidency are obvious: he not only promises to nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court; he mobilized the darkest white-supremacist circles and openly flirts with anti-immigrant racism; he flouts basic rules of decency and symbolizes the disintegration of basic ethical standards; while advocating concern for the misery of ordinary people, he effectively promotes a brutal neoliberal agenda that includes tax breaks for the rich, further deregulation, etc., etc. Trump is a vulgar opportunist, yet he is still a vulgar specimen of humanity (in contrast to entities like Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum whom I suspect of being aliens). What Trump is definitely not is a successful productive and innovative capitalist—he excels at getting into bankruptcy and then making the taxpayers cover up his debts. Liberals panicked by Trump dismiss the idea that Trump’s eventual victory can start a process out of which an authentic Left would emerge. Their favorite counterargument is a reference to Hitler. Many German Communists welcomed the Nazi takeover in 1933 as a chance for the radical Left as the only force which can defeat them. As we know, their appreciation of Hitler’s rise was a catastrophic mistake. The question is: Are things the same with Trump? Is Trump a danger that should bring together a broad front in the same way that Hitler did, a front where “decent” conservatives and libertarians fight together with mainstream liberal progressives and (whatever remains of) the radical Left? Fredric Jameson was right in a November 4 interview to warn against the hasty designation of the Trump movement as new fascism: “People are now saying—this is a new fascism and my answer would be—not yet. If Trump comes to power, that would be a different thing.” (Incidentally, the term “fascism” is today often used as an empty word when something obviously dangerous appears on the political scene but we lack a proper understanding of it. No, today's rightwing populists are NOT simply Fascists!) Why not yet? First, the fear that a Trump victory would turn the United State into a fascist state is a ridiculous exaggeration. The United States has such a rich texture of divergent civic and political institutions that their Gleichschaltung (the standardization of political, economic, cultural and social institutions as carried out in authoritarian states) cannot be enacted. Where, then, does this fear come from? Its function is clearly to unify us all against Trump and thus to obfuscate the true political divisions that run between the Left, as resuscitated by Bernie Sanders, and Clinton who is the establishment’s candidate supported by a rainbow coalition that includes neocon Iraq War advocates like President George W. Bush’s Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and interventionists like Ronald Reagan’s Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy Richard Armitage. Second, the fact remains that Trump draws support from the same rage out of which Bernie Sanders mobilized his partisans. The majority of his supporters view him as the anti-establishment candidate. And one should never forget that popular rage is by definition free-floating and can be re-directed. Liberals who fear the Trump victory are not really afraid of a radical Rightist turn. What they are really afraid of is actual radical social change. To repeat Robespierre, they admit (and are sincerely worried about) the injustices of our social life, but they want to cure them with a “revolution without revolution” (in exact parallel to today's consumerism which offers coffee without caffeine, chocolate without sugar, beer without alcohol, multiculturalism without conflict, etc.): a vision of social change with no actual change, a change where no one gets really hurt, where well-meaning liberals remain cocooned in their safe enclaves. Back in 1937, George Orwell in The Road to Wigan Pier wrote: We all rail against class-distinctions, but very few people seriously want to abolish them. Here you come upon the important fact that every revolutionary opinion draws part of its strength from a secret conviction that nothing can be changed. Orwell’s point is that radicals invoke the need for revolutionary change as a kind of superstitious token that should achieve the opposite, i.e., prevent the only change that really matters, the change in those who rule us, from occurring. Who really rules in the United States? Can we not already hear the murmur of secret meetings where members of the financial and other “elites” are negotiating about the distribution of the key posts in the Clinton administration? To get an idea how this negotiations in the shadows work, it suffices to read the John Podesta emails or Hillary Clinton: The Goldman Sachs Speeches (to appear soon by OR Books with an introduction by Julian Assange). Hillary’s victory would be the victory of a status quo overshadowed by the prospect of a new world war (and Hillary definitely is a typical Democratic cold warrior), a status quo of a situation in which we gradually but inevitably slide towards ecological, economic, humanitarian and other catastrophes. That’s why I consider Ian Steinman’s “Leftist” critique of my position extremely cynical. He writes: Yet while we can do little to predict how the pieces will fall, we know that to intervene in a crisis the left must be organized, prepared and with support among the working class and oppressed. We can not in any way endorse the vile racism and sexism which divides us and weakens our struggle. We must always stand on the side of the oppressed, and we must be independent, fighting for a real left exit to the crisis. Even if Trump causes a catastrophe for the ruling class, it will also be a catastrophe for us if we have not laid the foundations for our own intervention. True, the left “must be organized, prepared and with support among the working class and oppressed”—but in this case, the question should be: Which candidate's victory would contribute more to the organization of the Left and its expansion? Isn’t it clear that Trump's victory would have “laid the foundations for our own intervention” much more than Hillary’s? Yes, there is a great danger in Trump's victory, but the Left will be mobilized only through such a threat of catastrophe. If we continue the inertia of the existing status quo, there will for sure be no Leftist mobilization. To quote the poet Hoelderlin: “Only where there is danger the saving force is also rising.” In the choice between Clinton and Trump, neither “stands on the side of the oppressed,” so the real choice is: abstain from voting or choose the one who, worthless as s/he is, opens up a greater chance of unleashing a new political dynamics which can lead to massive Leftist radicalization. Think about Trump’s anti-establishment supporters who would be unavoidably upset with Trump’s presidency. Some of them would have to turn towards Sanders in order to find an outlet for their rage. Think about the disappointed mainstream Democrats who would have seen how Clinton’s centrist strategy failed to win even against an extreme figure like Trump. The lesson they would learn would be that sometimes, to win, the strategy of “we are all together” doesn’t work and we should instead introduce a radical division. Many poor voters claim Trump speaks for them. How can they recognize themselves in the voice of a billionaire whose speculations and failures are one of the causes of their misery? Like the paths of god, the paths of ideology are mysterious. When Trump supporters are denounced as “white trash,” it is easy to discern in this designation the fear of the lower classes so characteristic of the liberal elite. The title and subtitle of a Guardian report of a recent Trump electoral meeting puts it this way: “Inside a Donald Trump rally: good people in a feedback loop of paranoia and hate. Trump’s crowd is full of honest and decent people—but the Republican’s invective has a chilling effect on fans of his one-man show.” But how did Trump become the voice of so many “honest and decent” people? Trump single-handedly ruined the Republican Party, antagonizing both the old party establishment and the Christian fundamentalists—what remains as the core of his support are the bearers of the populist rage versus the establishment, and this core is dismissed by liberals as the “white trash”—but are they not precisely those that should be won over to the radical Leftist cause (this is what Bernie Sanders was able to do). One should rid oneself of the false panic, fearing the Trump victory as the ultimate horror which makes us support Clinton in spite of all her obvious shortcomings. Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 has issued a correction as of 02:25 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
"socialism doesn't sell in modern america, we need moderate neoliberalism" (loses all 3 branches of government because of voters that want a working-class evolution) "hmm well okay but socialism still doesn't sell"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Hillary lost because she came off goofy. She acted all friendly and it came off stilted. Like, look lady, we know you're a hardened career politician -- act like Margaret Thatcher and be an enormous tough bitch. Her image loving sucked and came off disingenuous. Looking forward to Chelsea 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Seven theses about what Donald Trump’s election does — and doesn’t — mean. 1. A fear-mongering, race-baiting, predatory Islamophobe has won the White House. I formed my first impressions of Donald Trump listening to a talk by Yusef Salam, one of the Central Park 5. Donald Trump used his inheritance to demand their lynching. He will soon become the most powerful man in the world. Say no more. 2. Yet leftists are forever trying to change the world, in various ways; let us understand it, first. My newsfeed is full of injunctions to organize. Absolutely. But to organize, we should learn the right lessons from this debacle. And to learn the right lessons, we need the right explanations. 3. White supremacy does not explain Trump’s victory, unless all we mean by “white supremacy” is that Trump, like every president before him, was carried to the White House by white people. All Klansmen are Trump supporters, but all Trump supporters are not Klansmen. The one-fact summary of this election is the defection of Rust Belt whites without a college degree. Fifty-odd years ago they were voting for LBJ. Today, left behind by globalization, capital flight, and technical change, they’ve lashed out at the establishment, defending their past (and their welfare state) against assault by any number of scapegoats: China, immigrants, black people. Their fathers had great jobs; they want that world back. The elephant’s trunk has had its revenge. 4. Misogyny does not explain Trump’s victory. 42 percent of women voted for him. Maybe a few were motivated to do so by his sexism, but surely most chose to ignore it. The costs of voting for a predatory, anti-choice sleazeball were outweighed by the benefits of sticking it to the man. If you cannot understand that choice (and I confess I cannot), you have probably not lived through what they have. 5. Stupidity and ignorance do not explain Trump’s victory. These people no longer trust milquetoast liberals, and why should they? Nativism is less establishment, more radical, more promising. Of course Trump won’t bring back the jobs — not from overseas, not from immigrants. But to defeat him we needed a bold, different agenda for those whose world has crumbled over thirty years. They are not the wretched of the earth; far from it. But they’ve lived a miserable few decades, and they’re angry. Instead, liberalism fought Trump with the sweet-nothings of an impeccable insider. 6. Establishment liberalism has no answer because Democrats live in a parallel universe. They are perched on the tip of the elephant’s trunk, where it’s not thirty years of factory closings and opiate addiction, but Uber and stock options. 7. Yet if the Left writes off Trump’s base, we too have no answer. All the socialist POC in the country can’t fill a football stadium, much less put Humpty Dumpty back together again. In the main, we live in universities and/or in blue-state bastions. If organizing means nothing more than doubling down, we are in trouble. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/11/trump-election-whites-working-class-rust-belt/
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:24
|
|
|
Honestly if it's anyone but trump in 2020 (which may be a valid way to go depending on how bad he fucks up) a competent and charismatic democratic governor might have the best shot at beating him. They could at least say something like "competent executive leader" but lol if you can find a competent and charismatic democratic governor. Progressivism/populism/socialism should be the future of the party but it really depends on how awful trump is through four years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
hillary clinton was a greek tragedy waiting to happen. i think she is a talented, intelligent person. i think she is (or was) very, very ambitious. i think hillary clinton is a one in a million kind of person. she managed to avoid actual scandal and survive dozens of fake ones slung at her every day. but the republican machine worked. they dragged her through the mud for 20 years, and she thought, i'm doing it anyway, gently caress it. and i think every person on the planet should applaud her. she worked the washington game better than almost any other person in history. she tamed a thousand-headed hydra and was able to unleash it onto the world. but i think she played the game too hard in a couple of aspects: first, in her attempt to rightfully avoid scandals with a private email server. gently caress what y'all say, i genuinely think she used the drat thing so a republican didn't huff over very typo she sent in internet greeting cards after the clinton administration. she had her own best interests in mind and i don't think she had any intention of loving anyone over with the drat thing. look at what they put her through and go "yes, i want these people reading every word, ever letter, every bit of data i send". but when the email server was discovered, i think this is where the divide really comes in. the republicans flung so much mud at her, that her secrecy and double-speak like a true old-school politican became her downfall. there was now an item, a tangibility to her secrecy. this was part one of "hillary clinton is the corrupt democratic machine". if i recall the server was discovered because of benghazi of all loving things. benghazi undermined her ability to avoid being benghazied. i dont think people care about her emails. i think the emails remind everyone that hillary clinton was rightfully trying to hide poo poo, but there was an image drawn of her trying to do this already as a negative. it fit. the narrative stuck. the word emails makes people think she's hiding something. she was a snake-tongued washington crook in the eyes of many. second, wall street. after citizens united (and many other landmark cases), and after the deregulation of wall st, taking in big bucks matters to get elected. this is the perceived washington game. she had to take in millions upon millions of dollars to compete. this was how things were supposed to be done, thought everyone. after all, money wins small elections and always has. money buys you ads. money gets you people to upvote and downvote poo poo on reddit for fucks sake. money is the answer. more money, more control of the media. you get more ads, more ground game, more everything. more money makes for a better campaign because it affords you more opportunities than anyone else. the fact is, she gave into the dark side here and took bribes from wall st because they were going to fund her campaign. they wanted to buy her and make her enact pro bank policies. she went with 'hate the game not the player' because how the gently caress else are you going to win a presidential goddamn election? we have not had many campaigns of this scale, so this seemed like the obvious answer. but wall street collapsed the economy. her allies caused the collapse. i think most idiots know that (not the super crazy ones, but the ones that lost her the election here). she allied with the enemy and she was corrupt. again, strike 2 for washington. and i do think bernie sanders exposed this. if this was politics as usual and she had no opponent, tbh, i think she would have seen more scandals being flung at her, but she wouldn't have had such an air of corruption. i do not think this cost her the election, but i think it gave her another handicap to overcome. third, more obama. obama loving rules. hes a great dude. real charmer. good with the kids. obama is a one in a billion person. i hesitate to say this, but obama was a loving fluke. he had empty campaign promises and no baggage so everyone could project onto him. he motivated millenials because he was cool. he motivated independents because the republicans were in charge and all the jobs went away. but obama, somehow evaded being strongly tied to wall street. probably because he didn't line his pockets with speech money, i guess. but he had his turn, and white people in the boonies are still hosed. all the job growth went to cities because corporations are too large and so theres no way for local branches to just prop up and compete on the national or global market. small business are stifled and could not create jobs because obama let big corporations run the show. and this is where the branch breaks for that 10-20% of white people that threw the brick in the window. washington didnt fix their probems after all the hope-y change-y. hillary wanted to not only do business as usual, but she had the baggage obama didn't with big money and washington corruption. she wanted to break the glass ceiling, and white dudes, instead, wanted to drop the brick through it from above. she tried to win, but look at all of that. barely any of it was her fault (at least to her team), imo. when you look at this from an omnisesent poitn of view, of course that wouldn't work out. but look at it through her eyes. she made the right calls. but there were two more flaws, and they were 100% her fault and even with all of that above, she could have salvaged the election. 1) her campaign had no clear idea or voice, and her previous theme harmed her. "im with her" is a terrible slogan. not because its bad to be with her. nah, she's a pretty alright person with a couple things i dont like attached to her ticket. but it alienated all of the white dudes who got called sexist and they probably were, but they probably tried to improve and weren't total monsters. she made it more about being a woman than being a good politician at first, and this made for a wishy-washy message that went into later stages of the general. "stronger together" is a loving weak slogan. i see no goal. i see no idea for the future other than social policy. how does this help a white dude? here, let me look at the last two winning slogans. "yes we can", yes we can what? who gives a poo poo. yes we can ride unicorns. you can project what this means for you. its forward leaning and says something you want will happen, even if that thing is rainbows and elves. "forward" again, forward to what direction? towards whatever the gently caress i want! its goal oriented. it tells me something good is coming. hillarys slogans, and overal campaign theme, sold me no good feelings that i could make up for myself. "make america great again" this is powered entirely by nostalgia, but gently caress, it works. nostalgia is a filter and you can make up whatever good feelings it brings you. remember when you played sonic the hedgehog after school? yeah, we're back to geneis sonic the hedgehog games or whatever. who gives a poo poo. people are morons and they want to feel good about made up things that won't come to them. we want something and we don't know what that is but you better promise us the thing we goddamn want. hillary did not sell us anything we wanted. she sold us...... not donald j trump, who was selling a shitload of white people: a brick, nostalgia, and racism. and it had just enough support to loving win. 2) she is not charismatic. she is a wonk. she has a fake laugh and a faker smile. obama can pull this off so well, trump, despite being a buffoon, is a chaotic ball of orange digits and lip-like crevices all forming odd shapes, but they're his loving shapes. hillary is a baddass grandma and she tried to be the cool and collected ubermensch and could not pull it off. now, there's argument here to be made, if she really was genuine, or if her attempts to appear like this were to thread the needle of being a woman? gently caress if i know, but she was not herself. she was not her own person. she was a robot like romney, uncomfortable in her own skin and hell, the republicans probably did that to her. its super unfair that she can't yell like bernie, it's super unfair that she can't make self-depreciating jokes, or like a zillion other things. but she did not appear like a genuine person and that harmed the hell out of her. imo she could have gotten better acting lessons or something, but she didnt pull this off at all. obama was charismatic and fun and even if i disagree with him on a million things, he can tell a loving joke better than any other politician on the planet and thats part of why people voted for him. trump is a buffoon, but he is his own special kind of buffoon and people ate it up. 3) i had no idea what she wanted to do. seriously! what the gently caress! donald trump wanted to build a wall. he wanted to export mexicans and import nothing because gently caress global trade. he wanted to give japan nukes or something. poo poo, he has ten thousand policy positions that are concise and soundbyte-y. because he said literally everything ever, that gave people room to project their own policies onto him too. like, jfc. anyway, the point is, i can say like ten things off the top of my head that donald trump would do. hillary clinton would make college less not bad. thats about all i can think of that she can offer. obama offered "no politics as usual/unifted washington" "close guantanamo" and he promised every person in the country a 500 dollar check because the economy loving bombed. hillary ran a wishy-washy campaign with zero energy and rand on pragmatism and more of the same and suffered for it. she needed a clear vision and a few bombshell promises. she tried to play it cool and it blew up in her hands because people may not want lies, but they want an extension of the truth. hillary promised them the truth at absolute best. and that is a bad marketing strategy. oversell and then when you don't deliver, say you delivered anyway. people are goddamn idiots and marketing works. so my takeaway is: hillary clinton made some contextually correct choices, and ran a bad campaign as a reasonabley bland candidate. that is why she lost. she is not a bad person. she is super loving talented, but i will tell you a secret: she would have probably been a great president, but she is bombed the goddamn interview when asked about gasp on her resume. all while donald trump lied in big flashy bulletpoints.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:Obama had lots of celebrity support but he won. It's about coopting those people with a message. The HRC campaign did not have a message I'm not sure the celebrity support was a plus for Obama. I guess yeah, if your message is stronger than their image, then that's all well and good, but if it's not they're going to be putting their image out there with your name on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
One bright spot about President Trump, Ted Cruz is permanently hosed That's actually something I can enthusiastically support.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
whenimmashoo posted:I want to know this too. How the gently caress? I really think this is simply because Trump was loving insane and embarrassing. No one wanted to cop to supporting an orange clown hitler unless they were just classless and oblivious. There were plenty of classy and aware people that decided to vote for him though, but I doubt they would have polled that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
i am not editing any of that because i am on three hours of sleep. everyone sucks, hillary got a poo poo deal, but she still could have threaded the needle. america is sexist and i dont think it was her time because of it, but she tried anyway, for better or for worse, and was this close to doing it. but she didn't. she holds some responsibility, but not all of it. thats my effort post, cya.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
I honestly think the source of the polls coming up worthless was ~10,000,000 people classified as Likely Voters that have voted in every presidential election of their life-- except this one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Glenn Quebec posted:Hillary lost because she came off goofy. She acted all friendly and it came off stilted. Like, look lady, we know you're a hardened career politician -- act like Margaret Thatcher and be an enormous tough bitch. Her image loving sucked and came off disingenuous. Looking forward to Chelsea 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umDr0mPuyQc
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:30
|
|
|
ArgumentatumE.C.T. posted:I honestly think the source of the polls coming up worthless was ~10,000,000 people classified as Likely Voters that have voted in every presidential election of their life-- except this one. I think polling has proven to be inconsistent at best in 21st Century politics. You can't poll people who can't be reached.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Glenn Quebec posted:Hillary lost because she came off goofy. She acted all friendly and it came off stilted. Like, look lady, we know you're a hardened career politician -- act like Margaret Thatcher and be an enormous tough bitch. Her image loving sucked and came off disingenuous. Looking forward to Chelsea 2020. ha i just tried to picture Chelsea and thought she must have gotten plastic surgery or something because she looked good, then i realized i was thinking about Ivanka.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Millenials didn't Pokemon Go to the polls, but will they Digimon Go?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
hillary didn't chill, in cedar rapids hard enough
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:35
|
|
|
readying myself for a John Stewart 2020 bid
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:37
|
|
|
help, i need sleep.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
tao of lmao posted:readying myself for a John Stewart 2020 bid Campaigning on a message of Sanity didn't work
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
that was an awful post and im sorry
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Campaigning on a message of Sanity didn't work What, you don't remember? "I go, you go." Obama went, now Trump goes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
anime was right posted:that was an awful post and im sorry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07wZiqJlu3U
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Hot Autopsy Take: The moment we accepted the comedy skit of Hillary turning into Bernie, America subconsciously knew we're getting milquetoast version of what should be, in a package mired in problems. The media is a reflection of ourselves
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:41
|
|
|
anime was right posted:that was an awful post and im sorry I liked it a lot, thank you for it! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
I think the most important thing that we can do at this point is take advantage of this defeat and push the democratic party toward the left. Right now there is a power vacuum at the top, and if they right people move to fill it, we can probably push forward in 2018, and hopefully take something back by 2020.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Autopsy: The victim died when they cut their own throat with a chainsaw.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Better odds than the UK does with Labour anywayanime was right posted:that was an awful post and im sorry post was good, you're good
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
anime was right posted:that was an awful post and im sorry It was a very good post. Thank you for posting it  Porpoise With A Purpose posted:I think the most important thing that we can do at this point is take advantage of this defeat and push the democratic party toward the left. Right now there is a power vacuum at the top, and if they right people move to fill it, we can probably push forward in 2018, and hopefully take something back by 2020. People like you give me hope!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
Peel posted:also brace for people who think what the democrats need is a good hearty dose of racism Is it gonna be against minorities or doubling down against whites is the real question
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
tao of lmao posted:readying myself for a John Stewart 2020 bid Ah yes, Jon "gently caress OWS" "my brother runs the NYSE" Stewart will be our savior
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
anime was right posted:help, i need sleep.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Is it gonna be against minorities or doubling down against whites is the real question It depends on how much progressives are willing to stomach if it gets economic progress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
A political party doesn't realize that the people between the Rocky Mountains and Hudson River can, in fact, vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Cinnamon Bear posted:Ah yes, Jon "gently caress OWS" "my brother runs the NYSE" Stewart will be our savior i wasn't serious
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:51
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:It was a very good post. Thank you for posting it Are we as a forum going to do anything? I know something awful has historically been a source for a lot of old memes and we still are from time to time, maybe its time we put that power to good use? I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Is racism gonna be against minorities or doubling down against whites is the real question
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Harlock posted:I haven't slept yet i couldnt sleep last night and slept all day today
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
[The whole really long winded Aristocrats joke but it ends with "THE D E M O C R A T S!" instead.]
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 00:22 |
|
|
So will the 2020 dem primaries be done Republican style with 9 different candidates now or what?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:56
|
|