|
https://twitter.com/fart/status/796259597908484096 shoulda gone with dwarf fortress seriously though holy lol in retrospect this was a campaign run by an LA marketing department.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
Majorian posted: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. Yeah but that sucks. Evidence of it happening should trigger firings and reforms. The job of the DNC is to run the primary. Just because something happens all the time doesn't mean it's ok. An unarmed black dude getting shot by a cop because they thought he was dangerous happens all the goddamn time, but that doesn't mean it's ok.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted: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!" It is, but it touches upon a broader point, which I think deserves to be underlined: yeah, of course the Clintons were/are corrupt. Whoop de poo poo. So is every other politician in Washington. The Clintons are pretty garden-variety in that sense, and compared to Trump, they're small potatoes. So it's a little weird that Hillary Clinton was somehow the poster child for corrupt pols. Grondoth posted:Yeah but that sucks. Evidence of it happening should trigger firings and reforms. The job of the DNC is to run the primary. DWS got fired. (something that should have happened years earlier, but still, it happened) I agree that the fact it happens all the time doesn't excuse it; it is something that should be cracked down on, severely. But the tenor among a lot of Bernouts during and after the election seems to have been that this was the biggest, most horrible instance of party nomination-rigging in history. It wasn't anywhere close.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
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 people doing this were largely SA posters reacting to the fact that I was raising objections which had been deemed sexist in other conversations I was not present for; at no point did I say anything about how she needed to get back in the kitchen or call her a screeching harpy or anything else I imagine you are fishing for. But this was months ago and I'm not going to be able to conjure up enough detail to really get a satisfying answer to this question which is of highly dubious relevance to our current discussion anyway (RE whether I'm right to be mad about the leaked Goldman speeches and Podesta emails) so I'm not really sure where to go from here on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Mr. Jive posted: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. There's probably a middle ground between changing nothing and blowing everything up. Maybe we can work on trying to find that balance!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Gene Hackman Fan posted:Tim Canova ain't too big on Ellison for DNC chair. Tim's alternatives to Ellison are fine and honestly the only reason I support Ellison is because Bernie recommended him. I think it's fine to disagree! That said I'm ok with Ellison appealing to the current power structures and "unifying" the party. Because yes, Trump won not only because of economics, but because the 'deplorables' exist as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It is, but it touches upon a broader point, which I think deserves to be underlined: yeah, of course the Clintons were/are corrupt. Whoop de poo poo. So is every other politician in Washington. The Clintons are pretty garden-variety in that sense, and compared to Trump, they're small potatoes. So it's a little weird that Hillary Clinton was somehow the poster child for corrupt pols. It was because she was running against someone who is in fact not corrupt, and this "so what EVERYBODY DOES IT" excuse was being used as a reason not to support the non-corrupt guy somehow
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
After 2010 it still managed somehow to be a surprise that the Obama coalition only ever showed up to vote for Obama
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Majorian posted: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. I really truly wish I could believe that the DLC is just bankrupt and will disappear into the ether, but I don't think any organization with the depth of interest it has within the party will just up and leave. There are too many people coming up through it for them to just decide "oh hey I guess my guiding ideology was just wrong and we should move left now". As for McConnell, the distinction I would draw is that he, like the Republican Party as a broad whole, has a set of political goals beyond "continue existing in government", which distinguishes them from most of the national Democratic Party, and so he's willing to do things that are rude or uncouth or whatever, and I have so far seen no indication that the Democrats have broken themselves of that urge. It's possible this is a sea change, but I'm gonna need more than "surely now they see the problem" before I buy it, since they haven't seen the problem up until this point, which is why we're here in the first place. I think I'm justified in believing the Democrats will keep doing the thing they've been doing since '92 until such time as they actually do something different, and this particular move is not different.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:There's probably a middle ground between changing nothing and blowing everything up. Maybe we can work on trying to find that balance! Well its great that you agree some things should change but you may not like to hear what needs changing
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
bump_fn posted:yeah i think its posturing to be able to say "hey this guy didnt do anything he promised" It's also possible that Trump actually try's to do some of the good things he talked about, and it would be loving stupid to oppose those things just because Trump is the one doing them instead of Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
loquacius posted:It was because she was running against someone who is in fact not corrupt, and this "so what EVERYBODY DOES IT" excuse was being used as a reason not to support the non-corrupt guy somehow Wait a second, how was it being used as a reason to not support the non-corrupt guy (Sanders, presumably)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Mr. Jive posted: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. I think the biggest reason they lost, though, was that they focused on the wrong areas of the wrong states. Their electoral strategy was based on play the meta-game of winning certain areas of certain states rather than trying to turn out the vote anywhere they possibly could. It's the same dumb strategy that lost her the 2008 primary election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
it chills me a little to consider but i do wonder if schumer is also motivated by the fact that trump's camp and movement is rife with antisemitism
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Peel posted:it chills me a little to consider but i do wonder if schumer is also motivated by the fact that trump's camp and movement is rife with antisemitism Come the gently caress on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Venom Snake posted:https://twitter.com/fart/status/796259597908484096 turns it did work considering how sad brained people compartmentalized the loss through some popculture praxis
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Mr. Jive posted:Well its great that you agree some things should change but you may not like to hear what needs changing I work for a labor union, I would love it if Democrats talked more about the struggle of working people, the importance of labor unions for the American worker, wasn't so keen on unfettered free trade etc. Edit: and as a young person, working on global climate change as a policy priority would help. Democrazy has issued a correction as of 19:23 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Thoguh posted:Come the gently caress on. i mean his supporting ellison & implicitly major reform, not his softballing the filibuster, if that wasn't clear
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Wait a second, how was it being used as a reason to not support the non-corrupt guy (Sanders, presumably)? It was used as a deflection against accusations of corruption ("Obama was also corrupt by these metrics, so why are you so mad about it in Hillary's case?") in order to remove that factor from the conversation The answer, of course, is that there was no non-corrupt alternative to Obama, which really did make it sound much more palatable, but when you have a viable alternative that excuse doesn't really apply anymore. An analogy I favored during the primary was that Sanders was one of those grass-fed fair-trade gourmet hipster burgers that costs like $9, and Hillary was the same McD's quarter-pounder you've been eating every night for years. When you're used to it, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with it, but when you put it next to actually good food suddenly it seems kinda lovely
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
temple posted:That was my point to a degree in response to the tweets about dems being a failed group or consultancy. Dems actually have to lead and legislate, so its harder than what reps have to do. Republicans just have to destroy, obstruct, or stall. They don't have to come up with solutions. They don't represent anything which is why an orange con-man could take over their party in one election. Dems often fail or get bought out but that's due for the course of living in a capitalistic world. The country actually supports most of the progressive stuff, has historically supported those policies, created a working democracy for most people, and dems have to figure out how to make it better. Its dumb to bash the dems as an whole (Clintons excluded because they are hack frauds) or praise republicans because the two parties serve fundamentally different roles in our politics. Just wanted to highlight this post btw, because it's really good. The Dems, by definition, believe that government can work. The Republicans don't. Therefore, it helps the Dem brand to make government work, while it helps the GOP brand to sabotage poo poo or let it rot, and then throw up their hands and say "hey look, government doesn't work!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Lord of Pie posted:After 2010 it still managed somehow to be a surprise that the Obama coalition only ever showed up to vote for Obama Speaking of Obama, the Gallup and Rasmussen trackers are still giving him comically high approval ratings post-election. I was worried that the results would taint him as a loser, but it looks like he's really on track to leave office a popular president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It is, but it touches upon a broader point, which I think deserves to be underlined: yeah, of course the Clintons were/are corrupt. Whoop de poo poo. So is every other politician in Washington. The Clintons are pretty garden-variety in that sense, and compared to Trump, they're small potatoes. So it's a little weird that Hillary Clinton was somehow the poster child for corrupt pols. This isn't a defense of shutting down discussion by blaming concerns on sexism. quote:DWS got fired. (something that should have happened years earlier, but still, it happened) quote:I agree that the fact it happens all the time doesn't excuse it; it is something that should be cracked down on, severely. But the tenor among a lot of Bernouts during and after the election seems to have been that this was the biggest, most horrible instance of party nomination-rigging in history. It wasn't anywhere close. You're attempting to minimize completely legitimate concerns expressed by the people who were explicitly targeted, on the grounds that "everyone is doing it", "other people did it worse", and "they're too emotional and hyperbolic in their argument that it was bad". If you're critiquing "tenor" in an attempt to shut down anger and disregard valid complaints, yeah, no, that's not a valid criticism, it's just an attempt to deflect. GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 19:19 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:
There was definitely a shell game going on at the DNC and it's why I haven't given directly to the party in a very long time, only directly to candidates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
donna brazile ain't sticking around anyway
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:donna brazile ain't sticking around anyway And... ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:And... ? should they have left the position of DNC chair unfilled during the 2016 presidential election?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Does anyone know why she was at that insane alt-right conference down in Florida?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
y'all lusting for blood (which is understandable) but it's silly because all your supposed enemies literally bent the knee without you having to do anything. barring an act of god or keith ellison having a secret human trafficking operation in his basement, the progressives are going to own the DNC from the top down this is the worst civil war i've ever seen. D+
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:I'm like 10 pages back working through this thread, but this twitter post brings up something I want to discuss. I was infuriated by this on Friday and Saturday, but it's recently (and rightfully) gotten a lot of pushback against people seeking refuge in children's lit. Not just from the Chapo crew, either. https://twitter.com/thebafflermag/status/798206861950455812 A Good Article. quote:When disappointed liberals quote The Hunger Games in the coming weeks, they will only be redoubling the slick and foolish liberal embrace of Hollywood and pop culture that was so fully on display during Hillary Clinton’s failed campaign. Think of HRC mugging on SNL, dazzling the stars of Broad City, or palling around with Lin Manuel Miranda. Lena Dunham and Katy Perry no doubt have illuminating political opinions, but those opinions are the wrong vehicle through which to reach voters in Wisconsin, who have concerns that rate higher than snagging tickets to Hamilton—something Clinton likely would have noticed had she, say, spent any meaningful time in the state....
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:y'all lusting for blood (which is understandable) but it's silly because all your supposed enemies literally bent the knee without you having to do anything. barring an act of god or keith ellison having a secret human trafficking operation in his basement, the progressives are going to own the DNC from the top down I freely admit I'm just shitposting because I am Still Super Salty and because a lot of people on the Internet haven't gotten the memo that this week we're all about full communism now yet I'm still kinda worried the Progressive Revolution will either fizzle out or get coopted like Obama's movement did but the correct things are happening at the DNC that need to be at this point in time
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
It's not like we get everyone with a Progressive t-shirt in positions and yay we win everyone go home
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
loquacius posted:It was used as a deflection against accusations of corruption ("Obama was also corrupt by these metrics, so why are you so mad about it in Hillary's case?") in order to remove that factor from the conversation That's not exactly the argument that a lot of Bernie Bros made here during and after the primaries, though. It wasn't just that Clinton is more corrupt than Sanders; at times, it seemed to be that she was, personally, the single most corrupt, dishonest, Wall Street-friendly person to ever run for office. Which, I think we should be able to agree, is a little bit overboard. I say that as someone who supported Sanders in the primary myself, and argued at the time a lot of what you're saying here. You, personally, may not have made these hyperbolic arguments, and if you didn't, good for you - you were honest in your assessment. But a lot of Bernouts weren't, choosing to adopt the weird caricaturing of Hillary Clinton as something uniquely and peculiarly evil, and that's why their viewpoints got dismissed so reflexively here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Yeah in fairness it's really more of a Palace Coup than a civil war. We were just... really EXPECTING there to be any resistance whatsoever you know?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
as awful as Hillary is on being war happy if you seriously thought a shooting war with Russia was on the table you're retarded
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Lord of Pie posted:After 2010 it still managed somehow to be a surprise that the Obama coalition only ever showed up to vote for Obama You know who was at the helm for that one? Tim Kaine  e: who then stepped down for Donna after we got destroyed, who then was "replaced" by DWS (Donna was interim), and DWS got lucky that Obama is one of the most gifted campaigners of all time and then promptly poo poo the bed in 2014. Funny enough, Michael Steele was at the helm for the RNC in 2010, who then for some odd reason got replaced by Reince Priebus after orchestrating one of the best turnarounds ever. </end edit> Venom Snake posted:Does anyone know why she was at that insane alt-right conference down in Florida? Who at what conference? iospace has issued a correction as of 19:31 on Nov 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
logikv9 posted:y'all lusting for blood (which is understandable) but it's silly because all your supposed enemies literally bent the knee without you having to do anything. barring an act of god or keith ellison having a secret human trafficking operation in his basement, the progressives are going to own the DNC from the top down I don't disagree with this but Obama won the election in 2008 by 9 1/2 million votes and the party couldn't run away from him fast enough in 2010. I do not trust many of these people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
even Howard Dean's argument for being DNC chair over Keith Ellison isn't a battle over ideology, it's literally just "it's a full time job and you are a current sitting house rep" which isn't wrong
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
tadashi posted:I don't disagree with this but Obama won the election in 2008 by 9 1/2 million votes and the party couldn't run away from him fast enough in 2010. I do not trust many of these people. I can not for the life of me figure out why that happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
iospace posted:Who at what conference? A bunch of alt right crazies including O'keefe. iospace posted:You know who was at the helm for that one? This is why I'm worried about what he's going to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:35 |
|
|
yeah that he already has a job is a worry I have about himreignonyourparade posted:Yeah in fairness it's really more of a Palace Coup than a civil war. We were just... really EXPECTING there to be any resistance whatsoever you know? it'll come, don't worry
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:33
|
|