|
I don't know who to trust anymore in here. Both sides have good points and bad points. All I know is that I won't abandon minority issues and give legitimacy to creepy misogynistic and anti-LGBT crap.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:20 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 06:15 |
|
chumbler posted:Whole lot of twisting and goal post moving to try to blame Clinton going on here. "People don't like her on the economy" except apparently they did prefer her on the economy even in swing states. "She didn't turn out enough voters" except she a) won the popular vote and b) it's looking like her turnout is higher than any other recent candidate except Obama. I don't know guys, seeing how the demographics broke down, I think some sort of ism might have been involved. Of course there's ism involved, there always is. But the people who thought Trump's campaign was propped up solely by racism and sexism, myself included, were the same people who were planning their victory parties weeks ago, myself included. When your thesis of a Clinton landslide is proven utterly and totally false, it's time to shut up and listen to the people whose predictions were eerily prescient and cited the economy and the rust belt as reasons Trump would win - people like Mark Blyth and, begrudgingly, Michael Moore. I live in Texas, and if racism and anti-immigrant sentiment were the tipping point for this election than Trump would have dominated here. Instead Hillary gained 500k votes over Obama in 2012.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:23 |
|
Condiv posted:if it was the most important part of the election and she won on it then she would've won. why are you still going on about analyzing polls that can't possibly fix the issues you're dealing with? She did win, but by the tiniest margins, while she lost in all other categories. I mean, this is another one of the great "well, technically she did nothing wrong" moments of the Clinton campaign. Yes, she was recognized as about equal to Trump, that wasn't enough, obviously. In fact, it is a comical failure for a candidate supposed to be a sly policy fox with a great economic platform.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:24 |
|
lol at all the people still trying to say the take away from this election is "change nothing and keep calling everyone racist" do people not remember hillary clinton being the perfect candidate? the entire platform will forever manifest in people like her. and it lost. to donald "lol" trump. stop trying to justify this election as a squeaker. even if hillary had won the election by barely flipping those vital states, it would still be a down election where hillary did significantly worse than the last two elections. what happens when the republicans run their own charismatic candidate? or worse, what if trump somehow blunders his way into popular legislation and people actually like him?
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:25 |
|
RaySmuckles posted:lol at all the people still trying to say the take away from this election is "change nothing and keep calling everyone racist" Hillary was the perfect presidential candidate, who did technically all the smart things, as dictated by a technically advanced computer program, and in the end she won in all ways, except technically. It's like poetry, it rhymes.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:27 |
|
RaySmuckles posted:lol at all the people still trying to say the take away from this election is "change nothing and keep calling everyone racist" I'm going to change everything and still call racists racists. I'm just gonna be smarter about it. What do we do about the white supremacists and rising Nazi sentiment?
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:27 |
|
Apparently Bernie supporters are already taking steps at the state/local level to take over leadership positions:Politico posted:Bernie's empire strikes back http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/bernie-sanders-empire-strikes-back-231259
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:27 |
|
RaySmuckles posted:lol at all the people still trying to say the take away from this election is "change nothing and keep calling everyone racist" If they didn't have delusions of adequacy they wouldn't be Democrats.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:27 |
|
This is unbelievable. https://twitter.com/jimtankersley/status/797492671631790084
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:27 |
|
Pollyanna posted:I don't know who to trust anymore in here. Both sides have good points and bad points. All I know is that I won't abandon minority issues and give legitimacy to creepy misogynistic and anti-LGBT crap. I agree. I only think a few of them are arguing that and those people should be ignored or shunned. A focus on economics is important, and upholding justice is also important. I just hope we get through the next 4 years. quote:"I mean, without laying blame, and I've seen a thousand different sources laying blame at the feet of a thousand different people, we have to recognize that what we did in this last election didn't work. Whatever the reason, whatever the reason it didn't work," Vandeveer said. "We have a model, it wasn't invented by Bernie Sanders but was certainly utilized by Bernie Sanders, of organizing and appealing to the frustrations of working class voters that did work in some of the most progressive states in our country, the traditional Democratic states, which Secretary Clinton unfortunately did not carry. And that model needs, in my opinion, to come to the fore once again. Because Democrats have got to find their mojo and people right now are scared." I like this plan too. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Nov 12, 2016 |
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:27 |
|
Business Gorillas posted:The Ghostbusters movie is a perfect analogy for this, actually. Red Letter Media was right https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEKreyTkvA
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:27 |
|
Democrats won't be able to even sniff the reins of power unless they can satisfy voters on both social issues and economic issues. Don't you worry about democrats with the Wrong Opinion coming to dominate the party. The party will continue to hold 0 power until they find candidates that unite the entire coalition. Until then, we can enjoy Trump.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:27 |
|
Pollyanna posted:I'm going to change everything and still call racists racists. I'm just gonna be smarter about it. What do we do about the white supremacists and rising Nazi sentiment? Isolate them so they cannibalize themselves. Identify how they groom their followers, and attack those pathways, while sending messages of your own at the same targets as they were.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:29 |
|
Bill Maher is 100% right, we need a nasty motherfucker next time. It's too bad the democrats cannibalized DWS and Weiner cannibailized himself by being a shithead because we haven't had anyone decent since then to combat the GOP. Now we just have Obama/Clinton style millennial nice guys and poo poo for brain drum circle folk. We're in a lot of trouble if the meanest person the Democrats have in the next few years is loving Michael Moore.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:29 |
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Bill Maher is 100% right, we need a nasty motherfucker next time. It's too bad the democrats cannibalized DWS and Weiner because we haven't had anyone decent since then to combat the GOP. Now we just have Obama/Clinton style millennial nice guys and poo poo for brain drum circle folk. We're in a lot of trouble if the meanest person the Democrats have in the next few years is loving Michael Moore. holy yeah we need two of the worst dems in the dem party as members of our leadership. maybe wiener could tweet cheeky dick pics to donald trump
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:31 |
|
DWS and Weiner? Do you mean PR cancer?
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:31 |
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Bill Maher is 100% right, we need a nasty motherfucker next time. It's too bad the democrats cannibalized DWS and Weiner because we haven't had anyone decent since then to combat the GOP. Now we just have Obama/Clinton style millennial nice guys and poo poo for brain drum circle folk. We're in a lot of trouble if the meanest person the Democrats have in the next few years is loving Michael Moore. Weiner is an actual sex criminal and DWS was evidentially not all that as her strategy management in charge of the 50 states things, from what I read, meant the democrats were hosed over conclusively during the last two "none presidential" elections.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:31 |
|
Josef bugman posted:Weiner is an actual sex criminal and DWS was evidentially not all that as her strategy management in charge of the 50 states things, from what I read, meant the democrats were hosed over conclusively during the last two "none presidential" elections. Yea my phone ate the part where I said Weiner cannibalized himself
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:32 |
|
steinrokkan posted:DWS and Weiner? Do you mean PR cancer? Only democrats are worried about PR. Republicans are concerned with winning elections. We've got nice guy Van Jones who is, half the time, agreeing with Republicans, sitting next to Corey Lewandowski and whatever that old fuckers name is who thinks it's respectable political conversation to ask people to look for a sex tape.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:33 |
|
Nonsense posted:This is unbelievable. They were this incompetent? Holy poo poo.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:34 |
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Bill Maher is 100% right, we need a nasty motherfucker next time. It's too bad the democrats cannibalized DWS and Weiner cannibailized himself by being a shithead because we haven't had anyone decent since then to combat the GOP. Now we just have Obama/Clinton style millennial nice guys and poo poo for brain drum circle folk. We're in a lot of trouble if the meanest person the Democrats have in the next few years is loving Michael Moore. Agreed, we should nominate a guy who is unyielding in attacking Muslims and anyone who disagrees with her/him. We should nominate Donald Trump
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:34 |
|
Xae posted:A Constitution Convention is a non starter. Not really. All a legit constitutional convention, like in the sense of "we're completely replacing the whole thing" needs is the consent of a majority of the economically powerful states. Because a brand new constitution is going to be enforced on its own terms, not through a pre-existing one. Much like how the current one was enforced without benefit of any ties to the Articles of Confederation. Once the new thing is in power, you'd maybe pass an amendment to the existing one saying "strike all this, refer to newconst 2.0" or whatever. But that would just be a formality. The rules the original Convention used were hashed out over the course of the 2 year process, but were essentially based on existing rules used in Congress and the British Parliament. It would be much the same in a modern one - basic rules of order but no special rules. You're running the thing to create a whole new order after all.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:34 |
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Bill Maher is 100% right, we need a nasty motherfucker next time. It's too bad the democrats cannibalized DWS and Weiner cannibailized himself by being a shithead because we haven't had anyone decent since then to combat the GOP. Now we just have Obama/Clinton style millennial nice guys and poo poo for brain drum circle folk. We're in a lot of trouble if the meanest person the Democrats have in the next few years is loving Michael Moore. But what if they're nasty about minority issues at all and white people have a sad and decide to take their ball and go home?
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:34 |
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Only democrats are worried about PR. Republicans are concerned with winning elections. We've got nice guy Van Jones who is, half the time, agreeing with Republicans, sitting next to Corey Lewandowski and whatever that old fuckers name is who thinks it's respectable political conversation to ask people to look for a sex tape. Hillary Clinton lost in large part because everybody know her as a lying, unscrupulous son of a bitch. Let's replace her with Mrs. Crony Election Stealer and Mr. Compulsive Cheater
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:35 |
|
chumbler posted:Whole lot of twisting and goal post moving to try to blame Clinton going on here. "People don't like her on the economy" except apparently they did prefer her on the economy even in swing states. "She didn't turn out enough voters" except she a) won the popular vote and b) it's looking like her turnout is higher than any other recent candidate except Obama. I don't know guys, seeing how the demographics broke down, I think some sort of ism might have been involved and the economy maybe wasn't actually the big issue. Who cares if she won the popular vote nationwide, there are a poo poo load of people (and growing) in democratic strongholds like CA, NY etc. Did she win the popular vote in WI, MI, OH, FL or PA? Our survey says EH-UHHH. The electoral college is what matters and everyone knew that going into the election. Whining about some other metric in which she pulled better numbers is entirely pointless. We know democrats are going to turn out to vote for their candidate in CA and NY and we know there are a lot of them. The campaign did nothing to make sure the same thing happened anywhere else and now we have president Trump. Look at all the stories that are coming out now about people pleading with the campaign to do something in their state or to pay attention to them or their issue and being completely ignored. They assumed this was a lead in to her coronation, took everyone for granted, ran a poo poo campaign and lost.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:36 |
|
UV_Catastrophe posted:Democrats won't be able to even sniff the reins of power unless they can satisfy voters on both social issues and economic issues. Wait.... Wait... Are you saying Dems might actually have to consider the concerns conservatives have instead of just disregarding them as bigots???
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:37 |
|
My Linux Rig posted:Wait.... They tried a "Third Way". It was called the Clintons. Bowing to conservatism is absolutely the wrong tack to take.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:39 |
|
My Linux Rig posted:Wait.... Actually the exact opposite of this. That's what Bill did and look where that got us. Instead of trying to pander to moderate conservatives and disheartening progressives, we need to do what the Republicans did and tell the opposition exactly which way they can go gently caress themselves.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:40 |
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:They tried a "Third Way". It was called the Clintons. Bowing to conservatism is absolutely the wrong tack to take. To be fair if Hillary had won this election she would stomp the motherfucking GOP into paste, and laugh as they squealed.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:40 |
|
The Shortest Path posted:Actually the exact opposite of this. That's what Bill did and look where that got us. So they should disregard them all as bigots? Boy, I hope you enjoy Trump for 8 years then.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:41 |
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:They tried a "Third Way". It was called the Clintons. Bowing to conservatism is absolutely the wrong tack to take. Clinton didn't exactly seem inviting to "deplorables".
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:41 |
Could one of you post that old MLK related picture with writing scrawled around it calling him a terrorist or extremist or something like that? Sorry to be so vague, but I've seen it posted here on SA from time to time and can't find it on Google.
|
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:42 |
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:They tried a "Third Way". It was called the Clintons. Bowing to conservatism is absolutely the wrong tack to take. well we don't have to. conservative voters might be able to be reached by what would be considered tradionally democratic platforms. stuff like protecting our workers and bringing manufacturing jobs back and trying to make sure that blue collar workers can live a decent life even though they don't have a university degree
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:42 |
|
XyrlocShammypants posted:Only democrats are worried about PR. Republicans are concerned with winning elections. We've got nice guy Van Jones who is, half the time, agreeing with Republicans, sitting next to Corey Lewandowski and whatever that old fuckers name is who thinks it's respectable political conversation to ask people to look for a sex tape. Van Jones lost a white house appointment solely for being an angry black man under Glenn Beck's microscope. There's a reason he tries to be the polite punching bag.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:42 |
|
The Shortest Path posted:Actually the exact opposite of this. That's what Bill did and look where that got us. Actually, I think you'll find that in an election where the Dem base couldn't be bothered to turn out or vote D that we should've instead ignored those people's concerns even more and instead screamed about ISIS and immigrants. Yeah, that's the ticket.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:43 |
|
Pollyanna posted:I don't know who to trust anymore in here. Both sides have good points and bad points. All I know is that I won't abandon minority issues and give legitimacy to creepy misogynistic and anti-LGBT crap. Nit a single person has said abandon minority issues. We are saying economic issues have to be given equal footing. Some posters in this thread are not smart enough to do two things at once. They think it's a zero sum game where if you care about other issues, it means you don't have enough care left over for minority rights.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:43 |
|
zegermans posted:Van Jones lost a white house appointment solely for being an angry black man under Glenn Beck's microscope. There's a reason he tries to be the polite punching bag. And he sure loves to complain about white people for Trump, instead of his poo poo president and his poo poo candidate.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:43 |
|
Pollyanna posted:I don't know who to trust anymore in here. Both sides have good points and bad points. All I know is that I won't abandon minority issues and give legitimacy to creepy misogynistic and anti-LGBT crap. pretty clear which side you're on then
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:44 |
|
Bishounen Bonanza posted:Nit a single person has said abandon minority issues. We are saying economic issues have to be given equal footing. Some posters in this thread are not smart enough to do two things at once. They think it's a zero sum game where if you care about other issues, it means you don't have enough care left over for minority rights. That's fine and dandy except white progressives have a long, storied history of loving over minorities in the implementation of economic fixes.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:44 |
|
|
# ? Jun 5, 2024 06:15 |
|
My Linux Rig posted:Clinton didn't exactly seem inviting to "deplorables". No but trying to peel off the R voters who want nothing to do with the democratic platform except maybe aren't racists didn't help.
|
# ? Nov 12, 2016 19:44 |