|
Powercrazy posted:The worst was the projecting. Posters unironically thinking I want to decriminalize weed, not because I want to end the police state HRC *spit* helped architect, but obviously because "I just want to smoke weed". Completely ignoring that retail weed in NYC would actually be a step down from the awesome delivery services that are available. (Lol if you think weed delivery would be allowed). Ah yes, even though this was months ago, i remember zoux making that specific post, he even claimed he used to be president of one of the NORML chapters or something in college lmao.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
Fuckin Dayum https://twitter.com/jbendery/status/796825797323526145
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Get the fuckkkkkkkk in 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
I think we found our 2020 presidential candidate! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Pablo/Zach 2020
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:Extreme American libertarianism is no different from anarchist capitalism at all Not to get too derailed here, but Anarcho-Capitalism is a self-defeating ideology because a truly stateless society makes private property impossible. That's why "mainstream" libertarians say they're minarchists.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Zach for DNC chair
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:All the "mistakes" Bernie made were only considered mistakes because of the idiotic Neoliberal consensus, which couldn't countenance an insurgent politics after they had replaced oxygen with their own farts. It's clear now why liberals were always harping on about why platforms and policies don't matter, because they never loving cared about it themselves. They treated politics like a loving game, but it's always blood & guts. Now hundreds of thousands of people are going to die needlessly because of that institutional hubris and ideological failure. I think Liberals were prone to "platforms and politics don't matter" because many have only 2 gears: not talk about them, or talk about them in the most frustrating, tweedy, bloodless legalistic way possible. By the end of their first sentence most people have no idea what they're being sold, and lose any trust in the seller.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:It was just awful. Anyway I've reached out to a several people I worked with during the Primary so hopefully I can be a small part of the New DNC, now is a good time for people looking to get in on the ground floor since loyalty pledges and purity tests have been abandoned. Let's start by primarying loving Cuomo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
as much as this owns, boy there's a lot of folks replying to that that are 100% The Problem
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
I hope Donna Brazile gets hit by a loving bus. She is scum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Why is Donna Brazile addressing staff instead of immediately resigning as interim leader
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Internet Explorer posted:I hope Donna Brazile gets hit by a loving bus. She is scum. I like how Donna Brazile still claims her emails were altered even though there's software available that authenticates her damning emails as being real.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
these voices will grow stronger the democratic establishment must fall and it will
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Woke.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Let's start by primarying loving Cuomo. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Yesssssss. This is good news. My only concern is if it turns into a straight-up circular firing squad but a lot of people in the DNC need to answer very tough questions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Treating disenfranchised people as disposable demographics who don't factor into your political calculus is why you got the numbers wrong AND loving LOST.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Not to get too derailed here, but Anarcho-Capitalism is a self-defeating ideology because a truly stateless society makes private property impossible. That's why "mainstream" libertarians say they're minarchists. mainstream libertarians also melt down basically immediately if you try to tell them that their free market only exists because of government regulation and enforcement. but the real unifying belief is that none of them want to pay taxes man I hate libertarians
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
This thread has had some good posting but I think we need to be aware that mostly we are recapitulating our prejudices in the immediate aftermath of an event, not doing analysis. In the case of this forum this means it's dominated by angry bernie supporters squeezed out by the clinton hothouse over the last few months, now returned. So I'd like to say some words in favour of responses to the election outside of the 'more economic populism to win back white workers' consensus view ITT. First there have been a few posts mocking or excoriating women on whatever other site for being angry or distraught at misogyny. Honestly this is kind of a bad look. In the first place if you don't think sexism has been a factor in making Clinton not just uninspiring but the least popular candidate ever this side of Cheeto Hitler himself you're deluding yourself. In the second place women are one of the groups that Trump's America will be extra-bad for, so maybe give angry women a moment to be pissed about what men* just did to them. Secondly the talk has focused almost entirely on the 'white working class' as the possible target for populism presumably on the grounds that minorities can be taken for granted. And you have the corollaries to that of blaming the lack of wwc votes on whatever aspect of Clintonian messaging they're presumed to not like, suggestions ranging from the possible to the fatuous. But if you look at that turnout graph that's been going around, besides the slump in the vote from 2012 -> 2016 that's attracted attention there's also the fact that Trump's turnout isn't much different to 2012 or 2008. It's actually a little lower. So it's not immediately obvious there's some block of voters that switched from Democrats to Trump, or if there was he lost even more voters than he gained. Trump was selling something but people in general weren't eager to buy it and he ended up doing more or less the same as previous Republican candidates. And while Clinton's fortunes would have been better with more white votes, they would also have been better with more minority votes, which might have delivered Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida and so the presidency. And economic populism is an obvious possible way to increase margins and enthusiasm among voters of colour, because the working class is not a white class. Even if you want democratic economic populism as an electoral strategy, it's not necessarily its effects on poor white voters that make it most attractive. Relatedly I wouldn't confidently assume that white people (or areas, it's not necessarily the same people) that voted for Obama but not Clinton would have voted for Obama again, or at least not by a comparable margin. A great deal has happened to increase white racial stress since 2008 - continued economic weakness, BLM, the immigration argument and of course the presence of Obama himself in the top job. Lastly when declaring that people shouldn't be angry or contemptuous of Trump or his supporters, recall that the Republican response to Obama was to immediately melt down about the socialist usurper, and this reaction delivered them the House, the Senate and ultimately the presidency. Perhaps a hard line against Trump, rather than increasing his support, would reduce it by demoralising his softer supporters and hardening opposition, particularly in the wake of his inevitable bungling. The exhortations not to oppose Trumpists are both based on an unsafe assumption and asking something inhuman of people in the firing line of the most repulsive figure to ever assume the presidency. *and white women lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DinahCox/status/796826450368299008 Pointing out that older people die sooner than younger people is ageist. This is what we're up against.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:as much as this owns, boy there's a lot of folks replying to that that are 100% The Problem 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
loving Pablo
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Peel posted:Secondly the talk has focused almost entirely on the 'white working class' as the possible target for populism presumably on the grounds that minorities can be taken for granted. And you have the corollaries to that of blaming the lack of wwc votes on whatever aspect of Clintonian messaging they're presumed to not like, suggestions ranging from the possible to the fatuous. But if you look at that turnout graph that's been going around, besides the slump in the vote from 2012 -> 2016 that's attracted attention there's also the fact that Trump's turnout isn't much different to 2012 or 2008. It's actually a little lower. So it's not immediately obvious there's some block of voters that switched from Democrats to Trump, or if there was he lost even more voters than he gained. Trump was selling something but people in general weren't eager to buy it and he ended up doing more or less the same as previous Republican candidates. And while Clinton's fortunes would have been better with more white votes, they would also have been better with more minority votes, which might have delivered Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida and so the presidency. And economic populism is an obvious possible way to increase margins and enthusiasm among voters of colour, because the working class is not a white class. Even if you want democratic economic populism as an electoral strategy, it's not necessarily its effects on poor white voters that make it most attractive. We have got to produce a message that appeals to both the working class as a whole and working class white men. So far Bernie Sanders-style economic populism seems like the only way to do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Peel posted:Secondly the talk has focused almost entirely on the 'white working class' as the possible target for populism presumably on the grounds that minorities can be taken for granted. And you have the corollaries to that of blaming the lack of wwc votes on whatever aspect of Clintonian messaging they're presumed to not like, suggestions ranging from the possible to the fatuous. But if you look at that turnout graph that's been going around, besides the slump in the vote from 2012 -> 2016 that's attracted attention there's also the fact that Trump's turnout isn't much different to 2012 or 2008. It's actually a little lower. So it's not immediately obvious there's some block of voters that switched from Democrats to Trump, or if there was he lost even more voters than he gained. Trump was selling something but people in general weren't eager to buy it and he ended up doing more or less the same as previous Republican candidates. And while Clinton's fortunes would have been better with more white votes, they would also have been better with more minority votes, which might have delivered Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida and so the presidency. And economic populism is an obvious possible way to increase margins and enthusiasm among voters of colour, because the working class is not a white class. Even if you want democratic economic populism as an electoral strategy, it's not necessarily its effects on poor white voters that make it most attractive.  Seems to be concentrated on the rust belt and midwest where people are mad about being out of work and factories being closed etc. Western PA is pretty extreme
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
Fast Luck posted:Why is Donna Brazile addressing staff instead of immediately resigning as interim leader Is there anybody left?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Zach rules https://www.facebook.com/madeinrussianfederation/videos/711103479043344/
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
Also, i remember getting mocked by hillaryistas by posting blog entries by freddie deboer, and now he's a superstar here because their empty suit lost. It's like a twighlight zone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
if bernie is willing to help put the party back together i have a little optimism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Peel posted:This thread has had some good posting but I think we need to be aware that mostly we are recapitulating our prejudices in the immediate aftermath of an event, not doing analysis. In the case of this forum this means it's dominated by angry bernie supporters squeezed out by the clinton hothouse over the last few months, now returned. So I'd like to say some words in favour of responses to the election outside of the 'more economic populism to win back white workers' consensus view ITT. Sir, this is a Del Taco.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Peel posted:This thread has had some good posting but I think we need to be aware that mostly we are recapitulating our prejudices in the immediate aftermath of an event, not doing analysis. In the case of this forum this means it's dominated by angry bernie supporters squeezed out by the clinton hothouse over the last few months, now returned. So I'd like to say some words in favour of responses to the election outside of the 'more economic populism to win back white workers' consensus view ITT. I think there's a need to remember that if we peel away the swing vote in the white working class we still need minorities to get out and vote for us. If I knew how to do this, I would be a political genius making seven digits a month. quote:Lastly when declaring that people shouldn't be angry or contemptuous of Trump or his supporters, recall that the Republican response to Obama was to immediately melt down about the socialist usurper, and this reaction delivered them the House, the Senate and ultimately the presidency. Perhaps a hard line against Trump, rather than increasing his support, would reduce it by demoralising his softer supporters and hardening opposition, particularly in the wake of his inevitable bungling. The exhortations not to oppose Trumpists are both based on an unsafe assumption and asking something inhuman of people in the firing line of the most repulsive figure to ever assume the presidency. The problem is that a strategy to basically set the government on fire is only viable when your endgame is to set the government on fire. Which is a problem because that means Republican presidents tend to have accomplishments-the kind of bipartisan ones Americans approve of-while Democratic ones tend to have regrets. If Obama had rammed through more of his agenda through congress we would be gloating about how leftist technocracy beat right wing ignorance itt right now. So in conclusion: gently caress Grover Norquist, and I hope someone sends a naked Austrian cyborg back into the 1960s to kill him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Fast Luck posted:These are the counties that flipped from Obama to Trump: Holy moly that pic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Clinton was between a rock and a hard place on appealing to women. Feminism is very divided, enough that I would say even "2nd wave" and "3rd wave" are not distinguishing enough to properly communicate the magnitude of the difference. The first type is primarily grounded in economics. For example, things we take for granted now but needed to fight for: bank accounts without a male co-signer, can't be fired for pregnancy, can't be denied services on the basis of sex. The second is grounded on social behavior. For example, cat-calling, media representation, marketing/body image. I genuinely think Clinton cared more about the former, but campaigned heavily on the latter. Women who are older and who are poor care more about the former, in my experience--and in many cases it is justified, because a person's first priority is food on the table. That is why Taylor Swift weighing in would not do anything to change a Trump-voting woman's mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
So did Brazile get separated into 500 pieces by a whirring metallic alien noise right after that or what, what happened next
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Pick posted:Clinton was between a rock and a hard place on appealing to women. Feminism is very divided, enough that I would say even "2nd wave" and "3rd wave" are not distinguishing enough to properly communicate the magnitude of the difference. The first type is primarily grounded in economics. For example, things we take for granted now but needed to fight for: bank accounts without a male co-signer, can't be fired for pregnancy, can't be denied services on the basis of sex. The second is grounded on social behavior. For example, cat-calling, media representation, marketing/body image. I genuinely think Clinton cared more about the former, but campaigned heavily on the latter. Women who are older and who are poor care more about the former, in my experience--and in many cases it is justified, because a person's first priority is food on the table. That is why Taylor Swift weighing in would not do anything to change a Trump-voting woman's mind. I think we can all agree, however, that trying to force the DEAL ME IN meme was a grave and tone deaf error
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:@freddiedeboer is really great right now he is a hundred percent right. the average republican/trumpist doesnt know poo poo about any of those concepts. i have a lady who drives me to school(various reasons) who voted trumpbut she isn't a bigot, ignorent sure and definatly religious right(but catholic so she doesnt mind gays or even trans people much, its mostly abortion issues, but she doesnt understand any of the poo poo twitter left says she doesnt even know colonization means, as in the word, not even going to the concept, which leads to his and my point. if you talk down to people from an ivory castle and piss on them for not understanding all the technical language and concepts and call them names.they will eventualy knock it and you with them, down
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
Peel posted:snip gently caress Donald Trump, and goddamn it I cannot understand what leads someone to vote for him given his history and personality and qualifications and Trumpness, but taking a hard line against Trump is possible without permanently alienating the people who put him in office; I'm not advocating that we take it easy on ol' Don, but to dismiss his win as a victory of white nationalism and bigotry is short-sighted and a good way to just keep losing For as much as some people are talking about how Clinton didn't lose because of identity politics or whatever, it has to also be acknowledged that Trump didn't win because of loving sexism/racism, he won because Hillary loving sucked and lost white voters by a 21-point margin The fact that his numbers were equal to or lesser than polling numbers in previous elections just makes me believe even more that Trump wasn't voted in because people like him or believe in him - he's just a colossal "gently caress You" to the Left, express delivered by those who see themselves as Not-Left, and Hillary generated so little support and enthusiasm that everybody else just stayed home
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/796831076886970368 jesus christ Full Fascism Now
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 22:50
|
|
