|
Could we maybe agree that Russia did hack those emails, they were nothingburgers, and Clinton also hosed up?
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:02 |
|
|
NumberLast posted:Listening to the Democratic party scapegoat the Russian government like it was 1985 didn't make it seem like that. You realize it wasn't just the Clinton campaign saying this, right? Like, the entire intelligence community agreed on something. That never happens. There was no scapegoating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
NumberLast posted:Listening to the Democratic party scapegoat the Russian government like it was 1985 didn't make it seem like that. I should also add that every non-hardcore Dem I've talked to since Wednesday had made some variation on the half joke "WW3 averted." True or not, a lot of people had this perception of Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Could we maybe agree that Russia did hack those emails, they were nothingburgers, and Clinton also hosed up? Impossible. All answers must be cut-and-dry and monochromatic. That is the lesson of this election. NumberLast posted:I should also add that every non-hardcore Dem I've talked to since Wednesday had made some variation in the half joke "WW3 averted." I think that probably says more about the people you surround yourself with, than about Dems in general.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Impossible. All answers must be cut-and-dry and monochromatic. That is the lesson of this election. I'm talking about how she is a notorious hawk. Thanks for the weird insult, though!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Could we maybe agree that Russia did hack those emails, they were nothingburgers, and Clinton also hosed up? On the contrary, I cared about them very much 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Could we maybe agree that Russia did hack those emails, they were nothingburgers, and Clinton also hosed up? No
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:Could we maybe agree that Russia did hack those emails, they were nothingburgers, and Clinton also hosed up? I'm with you on the first part and last parts. But not the middle.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
I don't want to hear nothingburger ever again
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
NumberLast posted:I'm talking about how she is a notorious hawk. Most Dems don't actually view her that way. She is pretty hawkish, no doubt, but most Dems are actually way more worried that Trump is going to nuke the Earth now, because he's a giant flailing man baby.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:28
|
|
|
Is "nothingburger" a thing people actually said???
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
loquacius posted:On the contrary, I cared about them very much I mean if you didn't know Clinton was firmly in the business Dem part of the party before those emails I dunno what to say. There was all that spirit cooking and risotto stuff though, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:I don't want to hear nothingburger ever again It's on the same level as using the word "optics" unironically.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Most Dems don't actually view her that way. She is pretty hawkish, no doubt, but most Dems are actually way more worried that Trump is going to nuke the Earth now, because he's a giant flailing man baby. Yes, I very explicitly said the people I know that aren't Dems. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:I mean if you didn't know Clinton was firmly in the business Dem part of the party before those emails I dunno what to say. Just because you already know something terrible doesn't make it not terrible...
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
mrmcd posted:I mean if you didn't know Clinton was firmly in the business Dem part of the party before those emails I dunno what to say. They were a confirmation of things I had suspected but could not prove and was routinely called sexist etc for suggesting
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
this, but emails https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u13cDmKpo-4
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:I'm with you on the first part and last parts. But not the middle. What parts of them were particularly revealing? That the DNC put its thumb on the scale in the primary (stupidly, since it didn't really need to), and DWS and her clique didn't like Sanders? NumberLast posted:Yes, I very explicitly said the people I know that aren't Dems. You said "every non-hardcore Dem." That implies that you were talking to Democrats who aren't hardcore. loquacius posted:They were a confirmation of things I had suspected but could not prove and was routinely called sexist etc for suggesting Is that really what you were called sexist for, or was it the way you said it? This is key. \/\/\/that makes more sense then\/\/\/
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What parts of them were particularly revealing? That the DNC put its thumb on the scale in the primary (stupidly, since it didn't really need to), and DWS and her clique didn't like Sanders? Fair, there should have been another hyphen between hardcore and dem. My bad. NumberLast has issued a correction as of 18:37 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Barracuda Bang! posted:I thought you said Kaine was already on board...? All the people Iv had interaction with lately (the majority being Kaine people) have talked about being eager to get behind the new progressive movement. Those people aren't Tim Kaine. Now I think he will follow the winds and back Keith but I could be wrong. One of the reasons why internal party politics is awful a lot of the time is because of how dumb and obtuse it is. My focus is on getting people out and helping change stuff. CherryCola posted:I also just called his office because apparently the house goes into session at 2 and you need a pass from either your senator or representative to sit in the gallery. Yeah just being in the city alone gives you access most people cannot get. Also: Sheng-ji Yang posted:purge the blairites god wills it
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
People I talk to do not think we aren't in for ww3 with Trump
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What parts of them were particularly revealing? That the DNC put its thumb on the scale in the primary (stupidly, since it didn't really need to), and DWS and her clique didn't like Sanders? loquacius posted:They were a confirmation of things I had suspected but could not prove and was routinely called sexist etc for suggesting
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Is that really what you were called sexist for, or was it the way you said it? This is key. gently caress off with the sanctimonious apologia tia
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Majorian posted:A war with Russia was never on the table. That's pretty weird then because every time I listened to the Dems talk about it, it certainly sounded like an increase in hostilities was 100% something they wanted to get behind. Majorian posted:What parts of them were particularly revealing? That the DNC put its thumb on the scale in the primary (stupidly, since it didn't really need to), and DWS and her clique didn't like Sanders? The DNC putting it's thumb on the scale of the primary was a big loving deal and seems to have convinced a number of people to stay home, and the fact that they didn't need to makes it worse. It's a confirmation of the suspicions people had against Clinton and confirmation the system was rigged against them and their voice. How is that nothing?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Is that really what you were called sexist for, or was it the way you said it? This is key. Our side habitually reflexively judging people we have absolutely no knowledge of is one of many reasons we lost this election, yes
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
The DNC helping to elect one candidate in the primary over another is actually super fuckin' huge and should absolutely result in firings and reforms, how do you say that and not think it's a big deal
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Surely people who think the system is rigged will consider it inconsequential when they get confirmation the system is rigged. Surely. And there's no way Trump could use proof of the Clinton's rigging something to rile up his base, who think the Clintons rig things.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:The DNC helping to elect one candidate in the primary over another is actually super fuckin' huge and should absolutely result in firings and reforms, how do you say that and not think it's a big deal Even if it had no effect on the end result, the fact that it happened is nauseating. The primaries are the only real chance at a choice in our system.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:The DNC helping to elect one candidate in the primary over another is actually super fuckin' huge and should absolutely result in firings and reforms, how do you say that and not think it's a big deal About a week ago I was arguing with some people here defending it, saying that the DNC has the obligation to push for the most electable general election candidate  . Obviously they were wrong but even if they weren't it's dumb logic because electability is always subjective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Because of what I wrote, and you apparently didn't read. Schumer's top objective is his political survival. He wants to keep being leader of the Dems in the Senate. No, I read the rest of what you wrote, which is the exact sort of thing that people have been saying about the Democrats for the past 10 years, as they've continued to defy expectations in the number of ways and the speed with which they choose to roll over. They appear to be so committed to procedural comity that they are definitely willing to pre-forego the filibuster because then, certainly, the republicans will see how right-thinking they are and stop all of this nonsense. Why would they? Why would you even bring up the idea of not using the filibuster after the last 8 years? Say the rest of it, we'll work with them if they come to us, and hold your goddamn cards to your chest instead of laying out your pair of 4s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:46
|
|
|
Clinton lost this election by a total of 107,300 votes. She won the popular vote. I don't see why we exactly need to excoriate each other and engage in ridiculous circular firing squad behavior. We can talk about the positive work that can be done to engage with working class whites without burning the party down or throwing progressives under the bus. This doesn't need to be so goddamned agonizing as some people want to make it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
loquacius posted:Our side habitually reflexively judging people we have absolutely no knowledge of is one of many reasons we lost this election, yes I think there's truth to that, but let's cleave to the question at hand, ie: whether you got called sexist for bringing up issues with the Clinton campaign, or for bringing up those issues in a way that read as sexist. Because I think that's a possibility you're glossing over. Grondoth posted:The DNC helping to elect one candidate in the primary over another is actually super fuckin' huge and should absolutely result in firings and reforms, how do you say that and not think it's a big deal Because the parties always put their thumb on the scale. Like, every single time. They always have their favorite candidates, and part of their job is to nominate the candidate they think has the best chance of winning. They were obviously horribly, horribly wrong in this instance, but the fact that they're biased should not be news to you. GlyphGryph posted:That's pretty weird then because every time I listened to the Dems talk about it, it certainly sounded like an increase in hostilities was 100% something they wanted to get behind. Well, you listened to some pretty fringe Dems then, because that wasn't something that was part of the Clinton platform.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Al! posted:this, but emails I for one look forward to America becoming one giant Fast and the Furious movie! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Clinton lost this election by a total of 107,300 votes. She won the popular vote. I don't see why we exactly need to excoriate each other and engage in ridiculous circular firing squad behavior. We can talk about the positive work that can be done to engage with working class whites without burning the party down or throwing progressives under the bus. This doesn't need to be so goddamned agonizing as some people want to make it. I mean, if she lost to someone like Mitt Romney, that'd be one thing, but she lost to Donald 'grab her by the pussy' Trump, which should have never happened in a million years. There should be a firing squad, but it sure as hell shouldn't be circular.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Jhanez posted:No, I read the rest of what you wrote, which is the exact sort of thing that people have been saying about the Democrats for the past 10 years, as they've continued to defy expectations in the number of ways and the speed with which they choose to roll over. This is a pretty different context, though. Right now the very survival of the Democratic Party as a relevant organization is put into question. In two months' time, the Dems are not going to hold any of the three branches of government, and they lost to Donald Trump. Most of the DLC types have been as thoroughly discredited as possible by this catastrophe. The biggest Dem figures left standing are Sanders, Warren, etc. I don't buy the argument that Schumer is so dumb that he can't see this, and doesn't see which way the wind is blowing. He may be amoral, and in the pocket of Wall Street, and may have some truly inhuman views on Israel/Palestine, but one doesn't rise to the level of prominence that he has while not being able to read a room. e: Bear in mind, Mitch McConnell also publicly promised to work with the Obama Administration after the 2008 election. We all know what he said privately. Majorian has issued a correction as of 18:58 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
Mister Fister posted:I mean, if she lost to someone like Mitt Romney, that'd be one thing, but she lost to Donald 'grab her by the pussy' Trump, which should have never happened in a million years. it's kind of weird to think about that if she didn't pull resources out of PA and the Midwest this never would have happened. Christ what a disaster.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Clinton lost this election by a total of 107,300 votes. She won the popular vote. I don't see why we exactly need to excoriate each other and engage in ridiculous circular firing squad behavior. We can talk about the positive work that can be done to engage with working class whites without burning the party down or throwing progressives under the bus. This doesn't need to be so goddamned agonizing as some people want to make it. It's only agonizing for anyone espousing the view that Clinton and the DNC did nothing wrong, that their messaging failed, that the average citizen was wrong to not support her. In fact they both hosed it up, their messaging was concealing a rotten foundation of neoliberal policies, and the average citizen had little to gain by voting for her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Jhanez posted:No, I read the rest of what you wrote, which is the exact sort of thing that people have been saying about the Democrats for the past 10 years, as they've continued to defy expectations in the number of ways and the speed with which they choose to roll over. They appear to be so committed to procedural comity that they are definitely willing to pre-forego the filibuster because then, certainly, the republicans will see how right-thinking they are and stop all of this nonsense. Why would they? Why would you even bring up the idea of not using the filibuster after the last 8 years? Say the rest of it, we'll work with them if they come to us, and hold your goddamn cards to your chest instead of laying out your pair of 4s. I think they are doing this so the Republicans don't nuclear option day one. I think if the GOP is smart they should just go ahead and do it anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Clinton lost this election by a total of 107,300 votes. She won the popular vote. I don't see why we exactly need to excoriate each other and engage in ridiculous circular firing squad behavior. We can talk about the positive work that can be done to engage with working class whites without burning the party down or throwing progressives under the bus. This doesn't need to be so goddamned agonizing as some people want to make it. She did 15 or more points worse than Obama in some states while running against by far the least liked candidate ever, that's pretty loving bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 21:02 |
|
|
Majorian posted:I think there's truth to that, but let's cleave to the question at hand, ie: whether you got called sexist for bringing up issues with the Clinton campaign, or for bringing up those issues in a way that read as sexist. Because I think that's a possibility you're glossing over. The general theme of responses to this type of thing being brought up was "oh so why don't you bitch when male politicians do the same thing? Sexist!" Which was immensely reductive, to say the least.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:00
|
|
