|
Condiv posted:last night or a bit earlier it came out that obama was approving the rest of the DAPL, basically steam rolling native americans Well you know both sides, and we'll let it play it out.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
Peel posted:yet obama won his elections fair and square, by large margins with no irregularities. trump & the republicans won with a minority in a lopsided map, after an unprecedentedly dishonest campaign and criminal election interference by foreign intelligence and a republican fbi director, both magnified by a craven news media that sold the country out. his legitimacy is genuinely compromised and this should not be forgotten or normalised. it should be used to mobilise resistance and overthrow. Clinton also ran a comparatively dishonest campaign, rife with issues of corruption and media collusion. Whether she lost fair or square, depends on how much can be proved that Republican voter suppression measures actually suppressed the turnout. He sure as gently caress doesn't have a mandate like they claim they do, but it's doubtful just how much the legitimacy of his claim to the presidency can be questioned. quote:maybe challenging the legitimacy of the president is bad for the republic. but guess what: so is trump, ten times more. the case for decorum in the face of right-wing extremity applied while it looked like clinton would succeed obama and relatively normal politics would continue. in that situation you can make an argument (challengable) for maintaining standards of discussion until demographic changes force the republicans to reform. The question I would ask is, why aren't we challenging the legitimacy of the republic? We got into this mess because the entire system was designed top-down to pre-empt any kind of meaningful change which wasn't spurred on by a crisis. We haven't had a meaningful amendment to the constitution since the voting franchise was extended in the 70s. It's a decrepit system of government which was designed by slaveholders and aristocrats with the express purpose of insulating their power from the masses. Whether we like it or not, Trump and the GOP are going to barrel through an extremely toxic Supreme Court Justice. An entire branch of the government gone for maybe decades, and Ginsburg is not immortal. Hell they probably wouldn't even approve the kind of extreme measures this country needs if Obama had been able to make appointments. The massively suppressed voter turnout which occurs every single election, the institutional checks against any kind of push for meaningful action, the reinforcement of a two-party system which hamstrung itself into permanent deadlock because third party entry is blocked at every level of government and the media, a legislative system which allows private interests to literally write the laws, a national electoral college designed with a capacity to veto the popular will of the people... what more does it take than the election of Donald Trump and the ascendancy of his party based on less than half the votes which were actually cast - to finally call into question the United States government?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
It is pretty funny how Christie is still getting poo poo on even after the election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Clinton also ran a comparatively dishonest campaign, rife with issues of corruption and media collusion. Whether she lost fair or square, depends on how much can be proved that Republican voter suppression measures actually suppressed the turnout. He sure as gently caress doesn't have a mandate like they claim they do, but it's doubtful just how much the legitimacy of his claim to the presidency can be questioned. you can certainly take questioning it as an ethical and rhetorical stance, though. i actually came back to the thread to append voter suppression to the list. legitimacy is a constructed concept - a choice to give a kind of internal assent - and liberals have both means and motive to deny it to trump. quote:The question I would ask is, why aren't we challenging the legitimacy of the republic? We got into this mess because the entire system was designed top-down to pre-empt any kind of meaningful change which wasn't spurred on by a crisis. We haven't had a meaningful amendment to the constitution since the voting franchise was extended in the 70s. It's a decrepit system of government which was designed by slaveholders and aristocrats with the express purpose of insulating their power from the masses. i'm under no illusions about any inherent legitimacy of liberal capitalist regimes, but strategically i don't think the space to question america as such is there yet - this is a liberal thread and i'm writing for liberals. in a few years, it might be, depending on what the white supremacist takeover in a country with a plummeting white population share ultimately yields.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
Peel posted:you can certainly take questioning it as an ethical and rhetorical stance, though. i actually came back to the thread to append voter suppression to the list. It just seems to me that questioning the system is going to be a much easier sell than questioning the presidency. Liberals are still obsessed with decorum. You could see it in the way Clinton and Obama called for everyone to unify under Trump, as if they weren't effectively the leading voices of the opposition party. Most of the liberals are going to fall in line too, because they think if you follow the rules then you're legitimate by default. The rules were the problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
Peel posted:
Are you sure?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Extremely Hot Take incoming: Alienated people who voted for Trump were absolutely right to do so, because if Clinton had won the establishment would claim to be validated (despite losing Congress, and downtickets) and then nothing would have changed. Their lives would still be mired in the poo poo while every woke pipsqueak confidently asserted that they don't matter. I agree with this. For the same reason Brexit needed to happen. I was pissed at the time and still think Brexit will be a disaster but the left deserved this. It just took seeing it from an outside perspective to realise it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Liberals are still obsessed with decorum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It just seems to me that questioning the system is going to be a much easier sell than questioning the presidency. Liberals are still obsessed with decorum. You could see it in the way Clinton and Obama called for everyone to unify under Trump, as if they weren't effectively the leading voices of the opposition party. Most of the liberals are going to fall in line too, because they think if you follow the rules then you're legitimate by default. The rules were the problem. This is one of the things that really makes me sour by the way. That liberals fall in line, are more willing to cooperate, and try to play nice with others. When Democrats controlled the House and Senate at the end of the Bush years we not only worked with Republicans and let then pass legislation but we, after a bit of bullshit on our end, actually accepted his Supreme Court Justice nominee. If we had sat on that nominee and just rejected it forever like the Republicans are doing now we could have given a liberal SCJ to Obama and the Voting Rights Act might have not been gutted. Instead we decided to be the better man and do our job and play nice and our maturity was not reciprocated. When the Republicans got the House back they made no attempts to work with Democrats. They just blocked everything. Shaming them and pointing it out and complaining about it was just met with sneers and declarations that their refusal to negotiate was not them being assholes but because Obama was weak and couldn't lead. loving jackasses. Now they're gonna stack the courts with conservative pro-business jerks and THAT COULD HAVE BEEN US. We could have installed someone liberal instead of Alito. We didn't need to capitulate. The economy was in shambles, we knew we were gonna win the election. Why the gently caress, why the gently caress did we give them Alito? We could have had Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and [Insert liberal judge here]. We could have had a near-majority! We could have had a chance of protecting the Voting Rights Act! But instead we played by the rules and our respect and cooperation was met with belligerence. The Republicans didn't care about being fair, their districts were safe as gently caress, there would be no consequences for just being jackasses. We got played. gently caress us. gently caress us forever for being such beta cucks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
has anyone posted Bernie's op ed in here yet, cus its pretty good http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/opinion/bernie-sanders-where-the-democrats-go-from-here.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
temple posted:I disagree because most people doesn't care who's right or wrong, they just want something done. So the minute that liberals try to retaliate, it only prolongs the argument and nothing happens. Which leads to people feeling like government is broken. Any perceived slight by liberals confirms all the vitriol produced by conservatives and they will say they were right all along. Don't engage with hate. Don't engage with tit for tat. Always address the issue with a solution. Force the oppo to address the issue. Obama knew this. Obstruction is one thing but petty insults and finger pointing always make you look bad even if you're right. Donald Trump looked like the worst presidential candidate in history and he loving won. We're well past the point when anybody should be caring about image or optics. You say that Obama understands how to force the opposition to address the issue, but what the Hell did that ever accomplish? Every positive thing about his pitiful legacy is going to be wiped out, and every odious expansion of imperial power is about to be inherited by Donald J. Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:has anyone posted Bernie's op ed in here yet, cus its pretty good While I agree with the sentiment, wondering aloud if Trump will keep his promises without ever addressing he backed a candidate that was literally for the things he's projecting on Trump and saying he still believes Hillary was the right choice strikes hollow to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:While I agree with the sentiment, wondering aloud if Trump will keep his promises without ever addressing he backed a candidate that was literally for the things he's projecting on Trump and saying he still believes Hillary was the right choice strikes hollow to me. I think he means that Hillary Clinton was the right choice on election day vs Donald Trump. He's not saying she was the right choice for the dems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:While I agree with the sentiment, wondering aloud if Trump will keep his promises without ever addressing he backed a candidate that was literally for the things he's projecting on Trump and saying he still believes Hillary was the right choice strikes hollow to me. Bernie really didn't believe in Hillary, she was the lesser of two evils vs. the craziness of Trump especailly from the platform perspective. Of course in reality Hillary would have populated her administration with Goldman Sachs bankers and other horrible 1 percenters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:I think he means that Hillary Clinton was the right choice on election day vs Donald Trump. He's not saying she was the right choice for the dems. Fair point. etalian posted:Bernie really didn't believe in Hillary, she was the lesser of two evils vs. the craziness of Trump especailly from the platform perspective. Again, fair point but your last line is exactly why it rings hollow to me. A lot of what he's concerned about were things Hillary would have also done, and in my estimation she would have done them on steroids.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Again, fair point but your last line is exactly why it rings hollow to me. A lot of what he's concerned about were things Hillary would have also done, and in my estimation she would have done them on steroids. Trumps cabinet is looking to be top donors. He's everything we dont like about Hillary on steroids.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:Trumps cabinet is looking to be top donors. He's everything we dont like about Hillary on steroids. The campaign was a give away how top Trump donors ended up getting leaders positions. He is getting a Goldman Sachs banker Steven Mnuchin as head of the Treasury.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qp_gIWAaQVI "You know when you have Mac and you want to play a Microsoft game on it, and there's that weird lag? That's Hillary Clinton."
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:has anyone posted Bernie's op ed in here yet, cus its pretty good Getting off to the right start.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
reminder that hillary clinton was pondering bill gates or zuck as veep
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
SHY NUDIST GRRL posted:Trumps cabinet is looking to be top donors. He's everything we dont like about Hillary on steroids. My point isn't that Trump will be better, it's that I expected more self-reflection out of Bernie. I think Trump is kinda lovely. e- upon further self-reflection on my own part, he's looking forward and I can appreciate that
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
http://newdeal.feri.org/wallace/haw23.htm
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:has anyone posted Bernie's op ed in here yet, cus its pretty good can someone cut and paste? nyt has a paywall now
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:17
|
|
|
temple posted:I disagree because most people doesn't care who's right or wrong, they just want something done. So the minute that liberals try to retaliate, it only prolongs the argument and nothing happens. Which leads to people feeling like government is broken. Any perceived slight by liberals confirms all the vitriol produced by conservatives and they will say they were right all along. Don't engage with hate. Don't engage with tit for tat. Always address the issue with a solution. Force the oppo to address the issue. Obama knew this. Obstruction is one thing but petty insults and finger pointing always make you look bad even if you're right. This is the most mind boggling paragraph I've read in awhile. I don't mean to offend I really don't and I'm sure you believe this is what happened, but time and time again Obama capitulated on everything except when he was doing things that the Republicans wanted anyway. He was weak President, good campaigner sure absolutely, but he was a week kneed corporatist tool, and if you guys don't want the Democratic party to die (and I'm not sure I don't want it to at this point), then you better do a drat site better then him. eta- And now I don't mean yelling a lot and calling people names is the way to go, but I do mean having some spine in your action and doing things like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLNKNq9soLE Instead of things like this https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/793656884083339264 Zythrst has issued a correction as of 15:25 on Nov 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:It is pretty funny how Christie is still getting poo poo on even after the election. *in extremely thick north jersey accent* Aw hell yea we are gunna poo poo all over him. http://www.wsj.com/articles/high-ranking-new-jersey-democrat-calls-for-impeachment-of-gov-chris-christie-1478828777
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
Zythrst posted:This is the most mind boggling paragraph I've read in awhile. I don't mean to offend I really don't and I'm sure you believe this is what happened, but time and time again Obama capitulated on everything except when he was doing things that the Republicans wanted anyway. He was weak President, good campaigner sure absolutely, but he was a week kneed corporatist tool, and if you guys don't want the Democratic party to die (and I'm not sure I don't want it to at this point), then you better do a drat site better then him. Remember when the finance sector crashed in 2008/2009 and Obama didn't use the DOJ/FBI to prosecute the individuals responsible for the crash?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:My point isn't that Trump will be better, it's that I expected more self-reflection out of Bernie. I think Trump is kinda lovely. Trump isn't "kind of" lovely. Yeah interventionism is bad and never works out, Trump wants wars of conquest and plunder also to bring back state sanctioned war crimes. To even imply the two are comparable is too much for me. Maybe I'm still too light on Hillary, but Jesus Christ Trump is a comic book villain. Hillary is boring real world evil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Condiv posted:reminder that hillary clinton was pondering bill gates or zuck as veep As a techie I'd have been stoked for BillG but not zuck, never zuck
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:can someone cut and paste? nyt has a paywall now you can use a private/incognito window for nyt
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
loquacius posted:As a techie I'd have been stoked for BillG but not zuck, never zuck Zuck is a weird doughy manlet who thinks he's a progressive west coast native.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
looking forward to the woke progressive tech ceos bending the knee to trump
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
etalian posted:Remember when the finance sector crashed in 2008/2009 and Obama didn't use the DOJ/FBI to prosecute the individuals responsible for the crash? Its okay we'll give you billions of dollars, but no dessert!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Why not talk to your Starbucks barista about the importance of the Wall for Americans such as yourself #StandTogether #StarbucksMakesDifference
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
Peel posted:looking forward to the woke progressive tech ceos bending the knee to trump
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Is this the right place for me to vent about how the biggest hill shill I know IRL (one of three people from my actual life to get actually mad at me for being a Bernie supporter during the primary) just texted my wife a bunch of times about how she's sad specifically because "now today's kids won't know that girls can be president" Like, even during the election the fact that Hillary is a woman is the only thing she ever bothered saying in support of her. We now have a president that wants to put muslims on a national registry because they're a security threat, and she's mad because one hypothetical platitude for children will be a slightly harder sell. I dunno if I'm being a douche here but that makes me mad. It's just the whitest reason to get depressed. Even from a feminist perspective you should be more mad that we're probably gonna lose Roe V Wade. Peel posted:looking forward to the woke progressive tech ceos bending the knee to trump Zuck probably will; BillG never will; Notch probably already has
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
When does Bill Gates get his biopic anyway, is the problem that he's not as much of a douchebag as Zuck or Jobs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Zythrst posted:Its okay we'll give you billions of dollars, but no dessert! bad dems will also argue it's impossible to prosecute financial crimes by Wall Street, even things like the Savings and Loans investigations should it is possible if the president had a spine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Condiv posted:can someone cut and paste? nyt has a paywall now |
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:41
|
|
posted:
|
loquacius posted:Is this the right place for me to vent about how the biggest hill shill I know IRL (one of three people from my actual life to get actually mad at me for being a Bernie supporter during the primary) just texted my wife a bunch of times about how she's sad specifically because "now today's kids won't know that girls can be president" It doesn't even make sense on its face because Hillary won the popular vote. If she hadn't been the head of the worst presidential campaign in history, she would have won.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:46 |
|
|
etalian posted:bad dems will also argue it's impossible to prosecute financial crimes by Wall Street, even things like the Savings and Loans investigations should it is possible if the president had a spine. Hey, remember when all the banks were illegally foreclosing on peoples' mortgages through robosigning? I'm glad they got a pleasant fine for stealing homes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 15:44
|
|