|
I'd be fine with a woman man, minority, whatever. I just want someone with a history of a) not taking a ton of money from billionaires and b) fighting for progressive causes. Hillary definitely didn't meet the first requirement and the latter is arguable. At the very least the party seems to be going that way with a bunch of people supporting Keith Ellison.
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Edit don't know how that double post happened!
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:What the gently caress? What is the problem?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Telephones posted:Yeah, a white dude is an easier sell than a woman sorry to say. This country is sexist as hell. We need someone charismatic like Obama and for a woman that means she would need to be better than Obama or at least have a rock solid populist appeal. Hard to do right and not worth loving up. Don't ignore the reality: people thought Hillary was a shrill bitch. I 100% think that a progressive female candidate with above average public speaking skills could've destroyed Trump. Hillary was subject to massive sexism but the scandal machine also dovetailed hard into this and without both she wouldn't have had such a damaged reputation. Somebody who isn't as well known and without as bad of a history could've done just fine, I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Looking at net turnout only tells you net turnout, it doesn't tell you who voted for who or even why
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:When it crashes so will ours. Nah, when theirs crashes it's cataclysmic for them. We are fairly diversified. It isn't going to be a great day for the world economy, but the US isn't as big into China as a lot of places are.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Telephones posted:Yeah, a white dude is an easier sell than a woman sorry to say. This country is sexist as hell. We need someone charismatic like Obama and for a woman that means she would need to be better than Obama or at least have a rock solid populist appeal. Hard to do right and not worth loving up. Don't ignore the reality: people thought Hillary was a shrill bitch. What we need is a light brown or Jewish dude or someone else who can *talk* economics while speaking to race issues via skin color without actually speaking on them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
John Connor 2028.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I'd be fine with a woman man, minority, whatever. I just want someone with a history of a) not taking a ton of money from billionaires and b) fighting for progressive causes. Hillary definitely didn't meet the first requirement and the latter is arguable. I don't think there has been a candidate in 50 years who qualifies under those criteria. Even Sanders took money from billionaires. Vermin Supreme 2020?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
More interesting: wtf Steve bannon in the White House? Are the Trump supporters also happy with that? If so, why? And does it matter that he has ties to the alt right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I mean, reading comprehension is hard, bro. It's on a list that starts with "for progressives." The white working class, in your mind, are explicitly excluded from the organizing and leadership choosing stage. They can turn up for the campaign, of course. Ideally just after the ballots are handed out. None of this will be new to them. It's exactly what they were told by the neoliberals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:When it crashes so will ours. The US is pretty isolated from the Chinese economy so not really. The rest of the world, not so much
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Thatim posted:More interesting: wtf Steve bannon in the White House? Are the Trump supporters also happy with that? If so, why? And does it matter that he has ties to the alt right? They will be much happier with this part than with Priebus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Looking at net turnout only tells you net turnout, it doesn't tell you who voted for who or even why So you're willing to say that the people who predicted this would happen, and why it would happen, are full of poo poo and you know better because you don't believe that the people of a certain region might have a completely different life experience and world view than the rest of the Democratic Party?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Thatim posted:More interesting: wtf Steve bannon in the White House? Are the Trump supporters also happy with that? If so, why? And does it matter that he has ties to the alt right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Thatim posted:More interesting: wtf Steve bannon in the White House? Are the Trump supporters also happy with that? If so, why? And does it matter that he has ties to the alt right? They don't care about his specific picks they barely know how the government functions as it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:The reason Dems lost is because they lost the support of the "brogressives" The reasons Dems lost is because they were a bunch of incompetent and overconfident buffoons who thought this was actually a possibility: Chuck Schumer posted:For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin. The Clinton campaign spent no loving effort on mobilizing the black or spanish speaking vote, they made zero outreach to white working class communities (which voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008 and 2012), and they refused to actually show any conviction about the more progressive aspects of their platform that people actually liked. Instead they spent millions on stirring up fear of the Russian Menace, tried to attract "moderate" Republicans by saying Trump was uniquely terrible while the GOP old guard was respectable, and treated downticket races as some sort of boring sideshow while guzzling all the party fundraising on loving losing. It was hubris, plain and simple.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Judakel posted:She withstood scandals just fine. Nothing really stuck or dissuaded people. The problem seemed to be, as another poster mentioned a few days ago, that no one could figure out why she was running in the first place. It was just "her time". She had decades of public service and working for liberal causes. Like progressives might hate her but Hillary Clinton was not in it for the money or the fame. She may have sought such things out to further her career but if you look at the arc of her life and say she didn't believe in her politics you're a fool. I don't agree with her politics or her methods but I believe in her sincerity. Judakel posted:Biden is not what I have in mind, but so what if he fit? So what if it is a straight white guy? Jesus... We've been ruled by straight white dudes for nearly three centuries in this country. Straight white dudes have been oppressing minorities for that time too. Do you really not have enough empathy to see why minorities might want to see someone like them in power for once? Do you have any concept of what the Obamas meant to black Americans?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I don't think there has been a candidate in 50 years who qualifies for those criteria. Even Sanders took money from billionaires. Candidates aren't at liberty of vetting their contributor, realistically. The key is whether they solicit contributions from moneied interests.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Nah, when theirs crashes it's cataclysmic for them. We are fairly diversified. It isn't going to be a great day for the world economy, but the US isn't as big into China as a lot of places are. If the Chinese economy crashes hard enough it will certainly take out South America due to Chinese investments there, it will significantly impact Europe and depending on the EU economies might crash them too. If that happens, US economy will go down as well. This isn't even considering the possible fall of TBTF institutions in combination with systemic risk along the lines of Credit Default Swaps. Being diversified doesn't make a Chinese crash not globally impactful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I don't think there has been a candidate in 50 years who qualifies under those criteria. Even Sanders took money from billionaires. which is why I clarify it with "a ton." Hillary doing stuff like goldman speeches don't look good. I'm not arguing for an absolute, but I want some reassurances they won't just answer to their wealthy donors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:The US is pretty isolated from the Chinese economy so not really. The rest of the world, not so much If the Chinese economy completely crashes it'll absolutely trigger a US recession, it just might take a few years. We're not so isolated that we won't feel the effects of the rest of the global economy coming to a screeching halt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Antonin Scalia posted:Your defense, when called out for telling white people to sit down and shut up, is that you're not telling the white working class that. You're telling people who want to organize and choose leadership of the new DNC that. There are white working class Progressives. The conceptual difference between "progressives" and "white working class voters" is implicitly that the second group are not presently Democrats and don't like us and we're trying to win them back. If they don't like us and aren't Democrats they probably aren't participating in leadership roles or party meetings. If they do, then more power to them. But you're trying to twist my words to mean what they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
HorseRenoir posted:The US is pretty isolated from the Chinese economy so not really. The rest of the world, not so much For all the talk about American dependence on Chinese money, it is China who is dependent on the US paying off their bonds on time, and the US is not dependent on the Chinese ability to render future payments, as long as they can find a substitute. I think a US debt default would kill both China, and America for this reason. That is my understanding, am I wrong?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:He also ran on hatred of immigrants and national stop and frisk and was endorsed by the KKK. Please, educate me on why he won. Lol if you think Hillary was actually going to implement progressive platforms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
I think the way people run for president has fundamentally changed. It's not about policy or judgement anymore. It's about public enthusiasm and force of personality. So quit looking for a politician to be the face of the Democratic part in 2020. Look for rock stars, actors, and Tony Stark-esque tech idols.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Looking at net turnout only tells you net turnout, it doesn't tell you who voted for who or even why http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/26/trump-inspiring-rust-belt-democrats-cross-over/ You can pretend or hope all you want that this phenomenon was isolated to my county in Ohio, but when I look at the electoral map, I'm inclined to believe it was not, in fact, isolated to this one single county.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Lol if you think Hillary was actually going to implement progressive platforms. I think Hillary would've implemented progressive reforms long before Trump does a drat thing he campaigned on. Remember, rear end in a top hat, she was fighting for actual government healthcare - not this ACA poo poo - before I was born. You can hate her all you want but don't act like she didn't do more in an average year than you or I will probably do in a lifetime relative to public service or advocacy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:For all the talk about American dependence on Chinese money, it is China who is dependent on the US paying off their bonds on time, and the US is not dependent on the Chinese ability to render future payments, as long as they can find a substitute. I think a US debt default would kill both China, and America for this reason. A US debt default would kill literally every economy in the world. Bonds are not the reason for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Kubrick posted:I think the way people run for president has fundamentally changed. It's not about policy or judgement anymore. It's about public enthusiasm and force of personality. politics has always been about that. All politicians have to energize people. There is no mythical time in which the majority of people carefully analyzed the policy positions of candidate and then made a rational choice based on their respective platforms. Lightning Knight posted:I think Hillary would've implemented progressive reforms long before Trump does a drat thing he campaigned on. which she promptly backpedaled on, but her supporters never give her poo poo for that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The problem is that if we do not push for minority candidates, then mysteriously the best candidates will always end up being straight white guys. Progressives and liberals aren't immune to systemic racism. And yet in this case (assuming Ellison runs) there probably isn't. Your point is that you want white people not to participate in Democratic Party Leadership because they've had their turn, which isn't too terribly different than running Hillary in the general because it is her turn. Which didn't work because it turns out you actually have to choose candidates based on their effectiveness rather than it being "about time we had a <insert minority descriptor> as the <insert office or position>". Barack Obama was a killer candidate and would be killer regardless of race or gender. He's loving got it. But if his clone returned as a white dude who managed a bank, you wouldn't consider running him. You are one of the most race obsessed people I've had the unfortunate happenstance of interacting with, and you sound like a /pol impression of a liberal. Mr. Belding fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Nov 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I 100% think that a progressive female candidate with above average public speaking skills could've destroyed Trump. Hillary was subject to massive sexism but the scandal machine also dovetailed hard into this and without both she wouldn't have had such a damaged reputation. Somebody who isn't as well known and without as bad of a history could've done just fine, I think. Yeah you're right. But I'm not interested in simply winning in four years. I want to see a democratic sweep. And I worry about the left's insistence on displays of racial and gender equality. Nobody cares. It is not a worthwhile moral issue when the US is on the verge of a brutal authoritarian state. It's incredibly tone-deaf.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Telephones posted:Yeah you're right. But I'm not interested in winning in four years. I want to see a democratic sweep. And I worry about the left's insistence on displays of racial and gender equality. Nobody cares. It is not a worthwhile moral issue when the US is on the verge of a brutal authoritarian state. It's incredibly tone-deaf. lmao (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
botany posted:If the Chinese economy crashes hard enough it will certainly take out South America due to Chinese investments there, it will significantly impact Europe and depending on the EU economies might crash them too. If that happens, US economy will go down as well. This isn't even considering the possible fall of TBTF institutions in combination with systemic risk along the lines of Credit Default Swaps. Being diversified doesn't make a Chinese crash not globally impactful. Which is why I said it will be bad for the world economy. Which in turn is bad for us. It doesn't end us though. It ends China as the pretense of a world superpower, it damages their capacity to ever make deals in the future, and it teaches some people a valuable lesson about investing, but it's not the end of global capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:55
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I think Hillary would've implemented progressive reforms long before Trump does a drat thing he campaigned on. For somebody who spent 40 years building up her credentials, she was shockingly easily convinced to delegate all her decision making on a computer. Add to that her naive belief that Bush was her friend, which led to her Iraq vote - - and it's hard not to see her as a rube who would have squandered everything at first contact with lobbyists,
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
FeedingHam2Cats posted:The reasons Dems lost is because they were a bunch of incompetent and overconfident buffoons who thought this was actually a possibility: Basically, it's summed up in this quote: "I may not BE Dale Earnhardt...but I smashed into the loving wall because I couldn't turn LEFT"
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Which is why I said it will be bad for the world economy. Which in turn is bad for us. It doesn't end us though. It ends China as the pretense of a world superpower, it damages their capacity to ever make deals in the future, and it teaches some people a valuable lesson about investing, but it's not the end of global capitalism. Nothing is the end of global capitalism, but it would crash the US economy all the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:She had decades of public service and working for liberal causes. Like progressives might hate her but Hillary Clinton was not in it for the money or the fame. She may have sought such things out to further her career but if you look at the arc of her life and say she didn't believe in her politics you're a fool. I don't agree with her politics or her methods but I believe in her sincerity. No, I don't think you're a fool for questioning exactly what Clinton stood for besides "being president". Sorry. She tried to be all things to all people and was accurately mocked for this. She "evolved" quite a bit. How many slogans did her campaign have? I believe there is an image floating around containing over 30 that were tested during the campaign. This was not a campaign with a clear message and people need that. quote:We've been ruled by straight white dudes for nearly three centuries in this country. Straight white dudes have been oppressing minorities for that time too. Do you really not have enough empathy to see why minorities might want to see someone like them in power for once? Do you have any concept of what the Obamas meant to black Americans? I get why they might want to see someone like them in power. It isn't a factor for me, but good for them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Anyone want to talk about Bannon, a literal anti-semmite, being announced as Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 05:28 |
|
|
Mr. Belding posted:And yet in this case (assuming Ellison runs) there probably isn't. Your point is that you want white people not to participate in Democratic Party Leadership because they've had their turn, which isn't too terribly different than running Hillary in the general because it is her turn. Which didn't work because it turns out you actually have choose candidates based on their effectiveness rather than it being "about time we had a <insert minority descriptor> as the <insert office or position>". Barack Obama was a killer candidate and would be killer regardless of race or gender. He's loving got it. But if his clone returned as a white dude who managed a bank, you wouldn't consider running him. You are one of the most race obsessed people I've had the unfortunate happenstance of interacting with, and you sound like a /pol impression of a liberal. I love that this is consistently the butthurt message you get out of this. "Please, white dudes, listen to minorities and help them gain leadership positions" has become "white straight men are banned from politics, you can never run for anything." We need hundreds of congresspeople, of course some of them are gonna be white dudes. We need thousands of leaders in the party, and some of them will be white dudes too. All I want is to not have another procession of fifty white dudes for President while we promise minorities we swear we care about you please vote for us. Why is that so much to ask? Telephones posted:Yeah you're right. But I'm not interested in simply winning in four years. I want to see a democratic sweep. And I worry about the left's insistence on displays of racial and gender equality. Nobody cares. It is not a worthwhile moral issue when the US is on the verge of a brutal authoritarian state. It's incredibly tone-deaf. So run a straight white male, or we won't sweep the elections. Got it. Who is Barack Obama again?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 23:57
|
|