|
Maarek posted:This. She spent more on correct the record trolls than latino outreach, spent more money in Nebraska than Michigan, never visited Wisconsin, etc. For as much as people like to complain about the left and purity politics I would almost describe what happened as a purity politics of the moderate center, of the Democratic Party refusing to do those things that could have earned it votes because it thought it shouldn't have to do anything except deliver smug, moralizing lectures on the superiority of the center
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Didn't Bernie promise to work with and cooperate with Trump? None of this "outright defiance" has shown up in my Twitter feeds. Though I guess a question like this is pointless since we live in post-truth politics where the omly thing that matters is what you want to think. He did the same way every other democrat politician did. He's not getting castigated by his true believers for it the way the rest of the party is though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
My Linux Rig posted:I get that but what do you plan to talk to him about? All the questions in my email to him that his canned response failed to answer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:Donald Trump can teach all the centrist Democrats a lesson beyond handing their rear end to them. Given that Donnie Trump started making concessions and compromises the instant he was elected, I wouldn't be so quick to come to this conclusion. Save the "Donald Trump's guide for how to accomplish social change" until he tries actually putting those policies of his into action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:Donald Trump can teach all the centrist Democrats a lesson beyond handing their rear end to them. Actually, this is racist and doesn't do anything to help minorities. Have you considered my solutions to help minorities such as retweeting articles by white trust fund babies working at HuffPo and intentionally obscure goals such as "awareness" which, by design, have no meaningful benchmarks or measure of progress?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Other social media sites, like Twitter, have a similar problem. Twitter is a shithole of rampant abuse and harassment because they largely refuse to directly do anything about the abuse and the harassment, except for occasionally applying light punishments to particularly loud people if a celebrity or media figure complains too much. In most cases, these sites never invested in resources or procedures for stopping abuse and offensiveness. They figured everyone would just silo themselves off into friend-groups where they'd only see things they approved of, and use the user-available tools like blocking or downvoting to get rid of isolated bad actors who try to invade those silos, and if anyone asked "hey, why are you allowing open racists on your site" they'd just justify it with some bullshit about free speech. Twitter seems to be finally learning that becoming a cesspool is bad for business. Several high-profile buyers have walked away from the table and quietly cited their horrible userbase as the main reason, and just this morning they announced a bunch of new anti-abuse features.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
It's cool that being insanely wrong about everything for almost a year leading right up to November 8th hasn't shaken your confidence in your opinions, Main Paineframe. My new years resolution is definitely gonna be to try to develop that kind of self-belief.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:All the questions in my email to him that his canned response failed to answer? Yes, what were those?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Other social media sites, like Twitter, have a similar problem. Twitter is a shithole of rampant abuse and harassment because they largely refuse to directly do anything about the abuse and the harassment, except for occasionally applying light punishments to particularly loud people if a celebrity or media figure complains too much. In most cases, these sites never invested in resources or procedures for stopping abuse and offensiveness. They figured everyone would just silo themselves off into friend-groups where they'd only see things they approved of, and use the user-available tools like blocking or downvoting to get rid of isolated bad actors who try to invade those silos, and if anyone asked "hey, why are you allowing open racists on your site" they'd just justify it with some bullshit about free speech. reddit and twitter were both founded on an extreme free speech ideology, with the idea that allow people to say anything and the market of ideas will sort things out the problem with this philosophy is the same as any other libertarian philosophy - regulations naturally develop to contain the boundaries of freedom. there's no such thing as a truly free market because all markets naturally protect themselves with regulation (we all agree it's bad to steal, don't steal unless you do it in a very clever way) and the same is true of social communication (we all agree it's bad to insult people directly to their face...). by setting up a platform for communucation with little/no rules around what is proper, and if the technology used for your platform dislocates normal rules of social contact (systems based on preserving one's personal reputation tied to your identity mean nothing in a pseudononymous environment with easy identity changing) then you end up with basically no regulations on proper speech which allows the most active and busy users to dominate the conversation so the awful nature of twitter and reddit aren't flaws in the system, these are intended outcomes, and now the powers that be realize how "free speech at all costs" and "attracting new users" are mutually exclusive goals once the novelty of the technology wears off
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:the problem wasn't lack of radicalism so much as elite white liberals retreating into a hugbox echo chamber full of Hamilton and Westworld references and refusing to do actual politics because it's impure and they shouldn't have to Reminder that she was so deep in the hugbox her campaign thought that starting a moral crusade against a loving cartoon frog was a good use of her time
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
New Eichenwald article. I think it's pretty good so far.quote:So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers. Just one choice quote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Given that Donnie Trump started making concessions and compromises the instant he was elected, I wouldn't be so quick to come to this conclusion. Save the "Donald Trump's guide for how to accomplish social change" until he tries actually putting those policies of his into action. Well the Republicans (and Trump) are surely going to come out of this with more control over the national agenda than Obama and Clinton so I think it worked out pretty well no matter what they actually get to do. Business Gorillas posted:Reminder that she was so deep in the hugbox her campaign thought that starting a moral crusade against a loving cartoon frog was a good use of her time if anything Clinton legitimized the alt-right and made it more powerful than ever before. comingafteryouall fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Nov 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
fknlo posted:New Eichenwald article. I think it's pretty good so far. This is directly from the Clinton campaign losers to try to make their failure look better. It's disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Honestly, I didn't care for Hamilton.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This is directly from the Clinton campaign losers to try to make their failure look better. It's disgusting. Opposition research that discovered Bernard Sanders was broke in his 30s would definitely have destroyed him in an election where oppo research found a tape of the President-Elect saying he likes to sexually assault women as a reality TV star.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
quote:Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
tbh i think that oppo dump on Sanders is about as overhyped as Clintons oppo file on Trump. what i think would have really hurt him would be the national media doing its braindead both sides thing and turning the race into "gosh both candidates are just soooo extreme you guys. whats even going on in this country? is there any hope for reconciliation when the parties are running such zealots?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Yes, what were those? Concerns about the croney-ism in the local Democratic party, concerns that he hitched his wagon to the Clintons and will have learned nothing from this election, a distinct lack of opportunities to have my voice heard (no town hall meetings with him, or the Democratic party), plenty of other questions that concern our community (our county swung 20+ points towards Trump compared to every other election the past 30+ years). I don't see any other way to address this concerns since I've both left messages and sent email and so far only received a canned response.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:That guy must be pissed that his deadbeat neighbor who stole his juice is a goddamn famous Senator now. ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ BERNIE TAKE MY ENERGY ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:26
|
|
|
fknlo posted:New Eichenwald article. I think it's pretty good so far. https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/798251823282999296 mcmagic posted:This is directly from the Clinton campaign losers to try to make their failure look better. It's disgusting. https://twitter.com/inthedollarbin/status/798253850125799424 paranoid randroid posted:tbh i think that oppo dump on Sanders is about as overhyped as Clintons oppo file on Trump. this is the correct answer
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
fknlo posted:New Eichenwald article. I think it's pretty good so far. Given how trump won despite all the crazy poo poo he did, I'd argue that the entire campaign came around to what the message of each party was and how much the electorate believed the candidate. Not saying that bernie was perfect, but hillary's fatal flaw was that she was seen as disingenuous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Honestly, I didn't care for Hamilton. I didn't either and it seemed like the epitome of white liberalism: a bunch of stuffy white people patting themselves on the back for liking "the rap"
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
I didn't even see Hamilton 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
I think if you honestly believe the stuff that renowned maniac weirdo Kurt Eichenwald posted would have turned the election you were already either ideologically opposed to Bernard Sanders or you desperately do not want to admit that this election was bungled and you made a mistake nominating Hillary Clinton. She lost the election in Rust Belt states because Trump campaigned heavily there with a populist message about outsourcing and the establishment being in bed with wall street. Sanders was strongest in the primaries in that area and that was basically his platform, minus groping women and deporting as many brown people as he could round up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This is directly from the Clinton campaign losers to try to make their failure look better. It's disgusting. You should appreciate the irony of the Clintonistas, who tried to run a party based on exclusionism and smug superiority, gradually getting excluded from their own party. From the looks of it there might actually be a Left in this country, despite their best efforts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Maarek posted:I think if you honestly believe the stuff that renowned maniac weirdo Kurt Eichenwald posted would have turned the election you were already either ideologically opposed to Bernard Sanders or you desperately do not want to admit that this election was bungled and you made a mistake nominating Hillary Clinton. I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary. I think he would have lost in the general for a multitude of reasons, some of which are covered in that Eichenwald story.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:tbh i think that oppo dump on Sanders is about as overhyped as Clintons oppo file on Trump. Agree but i dont think that would actually hurt Bernie because trump isnt a zealot, he has no cause he really stands for, so either the contrast wouldn't really take hold that way or Bernie would be able to probably make a case that being a zealot for civil rights and for peace and for living wage for the working class is not a bad thing to be. Maybeeeeeeee
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Maarek posted:I think if you honestly believe the stuff that renowned maniac weirdo Kurt Eichenwald posted would have turned the election you were already either ideologically opposed to Bernard Sanders or you desperately do not want to admit that this election was bungled and you made a mistake nominating Hillary Clinton. According to what I've been reading people who lose elections are the only person responsible for their loss. Wrap it up Bernailures, he failed the primary and cost us everything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
its kind of loving irritating that the success of a Sanders general campaign would hinge on whether or not the Megyn Kellys of the world felt like prattling on about the Sandinista tape for weeks and weeks like they did with the emails
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
fknlo posted:New Eichenwald article. I think it's pretty good so far. This is so unbelievably salty and petty it's a really good illustration of how lovely the clintonite media pundits are. Holy poo poo what a terrible article full of nothing. I like how Eichenwald thinks that sanders would've had no chance against someone with an outright history of fraud, theft, corruption, who gladly admitted to sexually assaulting women, banning an entire religion, deporting millions and also hired a rabid anti-semite racist to head the white house.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary. I think he would have lost in the general for a multitude of reasons, some of which are covered in that Eichenwald story. I've canvassed for Bernie for the majority of my adult life and know scandal would have been a problem. No more a problem than for anyone else running for office, everyone has minor issues that are not disqualifying, but he isn't an unblemished knight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
I think it's pretty safe to say I'm fine with Hillary winning the primary and losing this election because I can absolutely see the centrist wing trying to tear down a newly forming left empowered by the young and the working poor. If that happened, the democrats wouldve lost for an entire generation as opposed to one election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
fknlo posted:I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary. I think he would have lost in the general for a multitude of reasons, some of which are covered in that Eichenwald story. It's fine if you think he would have lost in the general election. I think you're wrong, but we don't have a time machine. If you think he would have lost because of that lame opposition research you're out of your drat mind, though. paranoid randroid posted:its kind of loving irritating that the success of a Sanders general campaign would hinge on whether or not the Megyn Kellys of the world felt like prattling on about the Sandinista tape for weeks and weeks like they did with the emails People on SA might obsess over this poo poo but I promise you the people in Wisconsin, MI, and PA who made Trump president would not. They have bigger fish to fry.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:According to what I've been reading people who lose elections are the only person responsible for their loss. Wrap it up Bernailures, he failed the primary and cost us everything. he didn't really fail the primary, hillary employed her crooked schemes to rig the election that magically didn't work in the general, and furthermore if you look at her disapproval numbers you'll see that despite winning the popular vote, she was actually disliked much more than sanders was so in a way sanders didn't really lose the primary, and on top of that...
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
crazy cloud posted:Agree but i dont think that would actually hurt Bernie because trump isnt a zealot, he has no cause he really stands for, so either the contrast wouldn't really take hold that way or Bernie would be able to probably make a case that being a zealot for civil rights and for peace and for living wage for the working class is not a bad thing to be. Maybeeeeeeee i think it would have absolutely hurt him by making the mushball middle get all bummed out about the death of civility and compromise etc etc and lead to them sulking in their rooms on election day, much like we got in this bullshit reality
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:According to what I've been reading people who lose elections are the only person responsible for their loss. Wrap it up Bernailures, he failed the primary and cost us everything. i agree. bernie losing the primary was his fault mostly. but losing that primary did not have anywhere near the catastrophic direct consequences as losing the general the people you should really be blaming are the DNC and Clinton camp grifters who pushed everyone but Clinton out of the race because of the smorgasbord of spoils and favors they stood to collect on if/when Clinton won
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
boner confessor posted:he didn't really fail the primary, hillary employed her crooked schemes to rig the election that magically didn't work in the general, and furthermore if you look at her disapproval numbers you'll see that despite winning the popular vote, she was actually disliked much more than sanders was so in a way sanders didn't really lose the primary, and on top of that... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:i think it would have absolutely hurt him by making the mushball middle get all bummed out about the death of civility and compromise etc etc and lead to them sulking in their rooms on election day, much like we got in this bullshit reality no no, you can always count on the middle to vote but you need the more extreme candidate to catch the disaffected fringe to put yourself over the top. this is why both clinton and sanders supporters are much more stupid than me, a diehard vermin supreme man
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:I thought they were supposed to ride horses They all wanted to be Conquest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 09:17 |
|
|
lol maybe if bernouts put as much effort into electing their candidate as they do smugging in this thread he wouldn't have lost so badly. You can't dismiss the Sanders oppo with "BUT TRUMP" because facts didn't apply to Trump like they would to politicians. boner confessor posted:hillary employed her crooked schemes to rig the election Yeah those three debate questions were answered with such masterful oratory skill that it convinced 3 million more people to vote for her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2016 18:37
|
|
