|
Good to know it's 100% the fault of the DNC that there are some idiots who have to be told to vote against fascism and bigotry. I mean, come on, the guy's campaign opener was "Mexicans are rapists" and anyone you know who was not enthused a year in advance to go to the polls and say "gently caress this guy!" prob deserves a slap upside the head.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
Squashing Machine posted:Yeah, and Dylann Roof falls under my "or" category. But keep on throwing out random insults, it's definitely helping your case. My case is made. I know jizztrumpets like yourself aren't going to stop your people from lynching me, because you won't even confront them in your life. I need to protect my life and the lives of my people. Maybe you should stop trying to be a white moderate and talk to your relatives about not being racist shitheads.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Radish posted:You can't win on just saying the other guy is bad. What the gently caress are you talking about, Donald Trump did exactly that. He called her Crooked Hillary ALL THE TIME!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:but enough about people voting against Trump Don't fool yourself, Dems did a good amount of that too
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
It seems to me that Clinton tried to talk a both economic anxiety early on, and no one paid attention. She did give talks outlining her policies, and they got a fraction of the coverage of Trump's empty podium. She ran some ads with stiffed contractors, and they made less of an impact than ads about his sexism or instability. In the first debate Trump basically admitted to being the establishment elitist he claims he wants to fight ("Maybe [the contractors I didn't pay] did a bad job") and it got less scrutiny than montages of him sniffling.
Dr Christmas fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
chumbler posted:It is the voters' job to exercise their god damned right to vote. It isn't the party's job to hold their hand while they do it. Trump won, and it is in large part non-voters' fault. Period. you can scold anonymous strangers on the Internet for not doing as you wish all you like, but it is never going to win you an actual candidate in office that folks like you can't seem to figure out that isn't an effectual strategy for anything may be one of America's lingering blessings, really, now that you've ceased to be even useful idiots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Squashing Machine posted:And that state controls weapons that no number of citizens with conventional firearms would ever stand a chance against. The US isn't going to call loving airstrikes on its own cities so it's a dumb argument, but I'm also, at this point, not strictly opposed to include everything up to howitzers in the definition of guns if it makes you happier about strategic prospects. Less glibly: we're about to look at pre-Matthew Shepard act levels of queer bashing. David Duke was loving creaming his pants yesterday. Agnosticnixie fucked around with this message at 21:10 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
chumbler posted:Yes, nonviters bear no responsibility at all. Clearly it is the party's fault. The purpose of political parties' existence that you'll learn in a poli sci 101 class is to win elections. The party, not the voters, is the entity with agency in a political science sense, it's the party's responsibility to win elections, not the voters'. You should be furious at the Democratic Party and HRC for losing, being mad at Bernie Bros is nonsense
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
negromancer posted:Because they know at the end of the day its a win-win and they don't really care enough about minorities to make the slimmest of sacrifices, like standing in line for a bit and voting. This is undeniably true. The disheartening fact is that people who felt the election would be a wash for them personally didn't give a consideration to others. The people who voted out of self-interest can be reasoned with, but these apathetic non-voters have something wrong with them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
negromancer posted:jizztrumpets you're a good poster but compound-noun insults like this are so cringey
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:HRC was a terrible loving candidate and liberals convinced themselves she wasn't and then spent 16 months screaming at and shouting down anyone who pointed this out Well, they could have spent 16 months sabotaging her campaign, would that have made you like them better? No, you would have despised them just the same. Anyway, Clinton's peccadillo's were *nothing* compared to Trump's consistent history of bribery and corruption in business. You can't paint him as the squeaky clean candidate. He's up to his neck in the same swamp that Clinton has got her shoes dirty in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
negromancer posted:My case is made. I know jizztrumpets like yourself aren't going to stop your people from lynching me, because you won't even confront them in your life. Fine, tapping out. Your ideology is dangerous, irresponsible, and thankfully will never fly in a million years. Please purchase a gun safe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
sit on my Facebook posted:you're a good poster but compound-noun insults like this are so cringey What about assgoblin? Fucknugget? Douchecanoe?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Well, they could have spent 16 months sabotaging her campaign, would that have made you like them better? No, you would have despised them just the same. Yeah, unfortunately past Democrats were making a decision on Hillary, not on Trump. I guess it is an instance of privilege that they were able to ignore what was going on on the other side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Anyway, Clinton's peccadillo's were *nothing* compared to Trump's consistent history of bribery and corruption in business. You can't paint him as the squeaky clean candidate. He's up to his neck in the same swamp that Clinton has got her shoes dirty in. No, you see, when it's a private businessman it's merely 'taking advantage of the way the system works anyone would do the same come on people  '
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:What the gently caress are you talking about, Donald Trump did exactly that. Trump's win is a lot more complicated. He did that stuff but he also had an easily digestible message that resonated with an area the Democrats had largely thought was theirs so they didn't put effort into maintaining it. Then on top of that conservatives have been trained over two decades to react positively to that sort of attack style. Democrats simply don't so they can't just say "Trump should be locked up!!" and expect the same reaction as Trump did for his base. Trump walked into a population that had already been prepped for his style of oration. On top of that he didn't get to Romney's numbers either so he was basically coasting on the base and shouldn't have won if the Democrats hadn't cratered. He SHOULDN'T have won by doing that but lucked out considerably because Hillary was apparently such a bad candidate to run. Dr Christmas posted:It seems to me that Clinton tried to talk a both economic anxiety early on, and no one paid attention. She did give talks outlining her policies, and they got a fraction of the coverage of Trump's empty podium. She ran some ads with stiffed contractors, and they made less of an impact than ads about his sexism or instability. In the first debate Trump basically admitted to being the establishment elitist he claims he wants to fight ("Maybe [the contractors I didn't pay] did a bad job") and it got less scrutiny than montages of him sniffling. Yeah when she was running against Bernie and right after I remember some television ads that actually talked about progressive economic issues but after Trump became a thing it switched entirely to how bad he was. Her campaign staff REALLY thought that Trump's odious personality was enough to get people to come out for her and she was wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Well, they could have spent 16 months sabotaging her campaign, would that have made you like them better? No, you would have despised them just the same. This isn't the loving point and was never the point. It's a rise in populism because capitalism poo poo the bed and one side had scapegoats that satisfied insecure white people's sense of wounded pride. It was never a normal election and the dems took it as not only a normal election but one where you could actually use the populist as a scare tactic. This is very nearly Franz von Papen levels of stupidity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
negromancer posted:What about assgoblin? You and I both know that your creativity is deeper than this  I'm personally partial to the adjective string insult; SquashingMachine is a backwards, racist, equivocating douchebag who probably resembles a goblin, for instance. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Squashing Machine posted:Fine, tapping out. Your ideology is dangerous, irresponsible, and thankfully will never fly in a million years. Please purchase a gun safe. Nothing about his ideology is as dangerous or irresponsible as insisting minorities lie down and accept what's coming the next few years but thanks for playing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Squashing Machine posted:Fine, tapping out. Your ideology is dangerous, irresponsible, and thankfully will never fly in a million years. Please purchase a gun safe. Except that it did. It's called the Black Panthers you insufferable idiot. sit on my Facebook posted:You and I both know that your creativity is deeper than this It is, but I'm lazy today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:It seems to me that Clinton tried to talk a both economic anxiety early on, and no one paid attention. She did give talks outlining her policies, and they got a fraction of the coverage of Trump's empty podium. She ran some ads with stiffed contractors, and they made less of an impact than ads about his sexism or instability. In the first debate Trump basically admitted to being the elitist rear end in a top hat screwing his own base over whom he claims to want to fight ("Maybe [the contractors I didn't pay] did a bad job") and it got less scrutiny than montages of him sniffling. The thing is, she was the wrongest person imaginable to deliver that message if you wanted it to be received as sincere on any level. The party nominated a globalist neoliberal with an extremely high-profile track record of backing outsourcing trade deals and schmoozing with bankers and helping make the rustbelt what it today, and expected them to eat it up when she said she opposed all those things, now. It was a middle finger to blue-collar America that there was no coming back from, and she failed to offer enough beyond 'not Trump' to make up for that with the black and Latino vote. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 21:18 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
Are there any good cross tabs for this elections results? From the articles and leading up to it, Bernie supporters voted for Clinton in line with normal party line voting, and ultimately the D base voted in the same way, but no one showed up. Where was all of Clinton's minority support? She was put on a pedestal for minority outreach and she underperformed in PoC turnout.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
negromancer posted:It is, but I'm lazy today. me too man me too
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
negromancer posted:Except that it did. I agree in principle with what you're saying but if you're looking to the Panthers as a model for personal protection and not a necessary militant arm of the Civil Rights movement, it's sort of worth noting that by 68 virtually every significant Panther was dead or in prison.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Are there any good cross tabs for this elections results? numbers are gonna shift a little until the final canvass is done
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:Nah, I think it's just a lot of people don't like being ostracized Perhaps then they might, I dont' know, stop trying to pass laws to harm minorities of all kinds? Just maybe? I mean, I know it's just crushing to be called out for the poo poo you do and/or enable, while calling out "thugs" in the "ghetto" or complaining about all these disrespectful protests, but perhaps not being a godawful group of opression enabling slime for once in the long lives of the surburban white men would prevent them being called that dreadful "R"word.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
Looks like there will be no self reflection among the people who spent the entire election functionally campaigning against Hillary Clinton, told everyone that voting for her was morally repugnant, and are now crowing about handing over all three branches of government to Republicans. First past the post voting was too complicated for these people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thenation/status/796773353113665536 How likely is it he'll get it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:The thing is, she was the wrongest person imaginable to deliver that message if you wanted it to be received as sincere on any level. The party nominated a globalist neoliberal with an extremely high-profile track record of backing outsourcing trade deals and schmoozing with bankers and helping make the rustbelt what it today, and expected them to eat it up when she said she opposed all those things, now. It was a middle finger to the folks likely to be swayed by Trump's isolationist schtick that there was no coming back from. She just didn't lie enough. She should have claimed that she'd bring back literally everyone's jobs. That's all you have to do to be considered good at the economy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:The thing is, she was the wrongest person imaginable to deliver that message if you wanted it to be received as sincere on any level. The party nominated a globalist neoliberal with an extremely high-profile track record of backing outsourcing trade deals and schmoozing with bankers and helping make the rustbelt what it today, and expected them to eat it up when she said she opposed all those things, now. It was a middle finger to the folks likely to be swayed by Trump's isolationist schtick that there was no coming back from. Do these words just not mean anything anymore? Yes, HRC is globalist, she supports free trade and economically open borders, but neoliberal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
negromancer posted:Except that it did. I don't want to marginalize your sound point But do you think Black Panthers would survive in an age of a militarized police? I mean, more militarized than ever? We know that white armed protestors are able to get off as long as they have the jury's sympathies, and so the cops are afraid of doing anything against them, but well...
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:16
|
|
|
negromancer posted:My case is made. I know jizztrumpets like yourself aren't going to stop your people from lynching me, because you won't even confront them in your life. My own relatives, at least, are open to pushback about their individual attitudes. Not that it stops them from voting Republican.  But they can be trained to not be jerks in person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Well, they could have spent 16 months sabotaging her campaign, would that have made you like them better? No, you would have despised them just the same. Once again, HRC was a genuinely terrible candidate with huge problems in an absolute sense, even with Trump's being much wrose. The near-pathological inability to admit this on the part of her supporters and surrogates is IMO the biggest reason Trump is now president. They could have nominated someone who could win, but they didn't
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:She just didn't lie enough. Yeah but you also have to pretend to destroy the thing that got you here, pretend that doing so will actually reverse anything, and pretend that it's totally in your own self-interest to do so
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I don't want to marginalize your sound point They aren't surviving very well without them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/intlspectator/status/796795500670251009
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Squashing Machine posted:Fine, tapping out. Your ideology is dangerous, irresponsible, and thankfully will never fly in a million years. We thought the exact same thing about white supremacy making a comeback and, whelp!
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Tatsuta Age posted:Out of the "ten women you know", statistically, somewhere between 4 and 6 of them voted for Trump, by the by. Maybe I know a lot of WoC and queer women and stuff?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Once again, HRC was a genuinely terrible candidate with huge problems in an absolute sense, even with Trump's being much wrose. The near-pathological inability to admit this on the part of her supporters and surrogates is IMO the biggest reason Trump is now president. They could have nominated someone who could win, but they didn't How many people do you think you personally convinced not to vote?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
JawKnee posted:Yeah but you also have to pretend to destroy the thing that got you here, pretend that doing so will actually reverse anything, and pretend that it's totally in your own self-interest to do so Pffft, whatever, just find a new boogeyman to blame. Seriously, I've figured it all out. We just need to run the most charismatic people possible and load em up with the biggest lies. Lie to all the rubes and they'll loving eat it up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 21:19
|
|