|
Mahoning posted:Your statements are dripping with the idea that you think its bullshit that economic anxiety compelled enough people to vote for Trump. Which, of course, basically absolves Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing or missteps along the campaign and just chalks up all of our failures to racism, which is a pretty quick way to demonize the other and not, you know, understand that people are individuals that are desperate and susceptible to persuasion. *wipes metaphorical phlogiston from my posts with a damp rag* what about now, professor
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
Mahoning posted:Your statements are dripping with the idea that you think its bullshit that economic anxiety compelled enough people to vote for Trump. Which, of course, basically absolves Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing or missteps along the campaign and just chalks up all of our failures to racism, which is a pretty quick way to demonize the other and not, you know, understand that people are individuals that are desperate and susceptible to persuasion. Clinton could be bad and economic anxiety could also not be a majority driver for Trump votes, yes? Is that possible? I have no evidence either way, but I bet Pew is going to do a baller report everyone will ignore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
I would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for those dastardly BERNIE BROS.... And their stupid dog too!
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What's the point of trying to make a coherent argument in this thread if it and I will just be dismissed as "broken brain" or "emotionally traumatized" and my argument ignored? You won't be if you don't post "emails emails emails" as a response to "both candidates were bad and more similar than different". Feel free to make an argument, I'd say 90% of the posters in this thread are willing to respond to effort with effort. quote:Likewise, if it is now cool to respond to inane comments with Broke Brain poo poo, like you yourself do, then why shouldn't I do it to the unless stream of inane worthless posts? Well for one, I was responding to someone who responded to me. There's a big difference between making GBS threads on someone with no context and calling them an idiot for making a bad counter-argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Clinton could be bad and economic anxiety could also not be a majority driver for Trump votes, yes? Is that possible? It didn't need to be a majority driver. She lost be a few hundred thousand votes in 3 (blue) states, combined. That's unacceptable and it has nothing to do with racism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
welp
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:You won't be if you don't post "emails emails emails" as a response to "both candidates were bad and more similar than different". Feel free to make an argument, I'd say 90% of the posters in this thread are willing to respond to effort with effort.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
Anyone else disgusted that Christian newsites are saying Trump is bad because he is considering an openly gay man for UK Ambassador? I mean, sure, it is some trump supporters realizing they were duped, but the reasoning is gross.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:The problem is that all of these arguments were made, over and over and over, for the last several months of USPol threads, and people don't really want to go over it again. And yet for some reason it's necessary to continue arguing about whether a different candidate would have won, because the answer is "maybe," because who the hell knows, alt-history hypotheticals aren't useful as a discussion point. I'm not arguing Bernie would have won, all I'm saying is that Trump and Hillary were much more similar than most of either of their supporters gave them credit for and that, for many voters, it was as much about "holding your nose" for Trump as it was for Hillary(and way less about emails or racism). I agree that the alt-history hypotheticals aren't a useful discussion point any more but isn't that pretty much where we are when you're responding to "hey they were both pretty bad" with "emails emails emails"? Can we not take a step back and look at the big picture implications than going over the minutae of how the election played out?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:What's the point of trying to make a coherent argument in this thread if it and I will just be dismissed as "broken brain" or "emotionally traumatized" and my argument ignored? Oh my god you're so close to having an actual moment of self reflection I can taste it
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
I guess this thread is okay, but still not as fun as just reading crawl diary again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:The problem is that all of these arguments were made, over and over and over, for the last several months of USPol threads, and people don't really want to go over it again. And yet for some reason it's necessary to continue arguing about whether a different candidate would have won, because the answer is "maybe," because who the hell knows, alt-history hypotheticals aren't useful as a discussion point. yeah but look I just wanna know, if I use this here time machine to go back and kill baby Hitler, does that just mean in the devastated present timeline I return to Germany will have been overtaken by a neoliberal
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Welp,
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
bernie takes off his mask and gasp, he's a wikipedia.com/neoliberal !!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
Why don't you guys just post arguments in good faith and stop giving a poo poo if someone trashes you for it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
I'm not sure what all the single word responses are to that news but isn't that a good thing? I was under the impression compromising with your political rivals to accomplish common goals (in this case- fighting corporate america) was something that was generally viewed as a good thing.Submarine Sandpaper posted:bernie takes off his mask and gasp, he's a wikipedia.com/neoliberal Fighting corporate america is like the opposite of support privatization. Would it be that hard to admit neoliberal actually means something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
I'm not thrilled about this but Trump actually implementing a set of massive infrastructure projects that aren't just slush funds for his friends are about as likely as him saying he was a secret democrat all along
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Your statements are dripping with the idea that you think its bullshit that economic anxiety compelled enough people to vote for Trump. Which, of course, basically absolves Hillary Clinton of any wrongdoing or missteps along the campaign and just chalks up all of our failures to racism, which is a pretty quick way to demonize the other and not, you know, understand that people are individuals that are desperate and susceptible to persuasion. I'm making fun of monocausal explanations of Trump's election, you spaz. Pointing out that racism was a driver does not absolve Clinton of her bad campaign.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:I'm not thrilled about this but Trump actually implementing a set of massive infrastructure projects that aren't just slush funds for his friends are about as likely as him saying he was a secret democrat all along "many democrats will be prepared to work with Mr. Trump if he turns out to be sincere about the promises he made during the campaign" is one gently caress of a pull quote A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Nov 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:it's more about his framing of that being the core of Trump's campaign promises, which... yeah some folks got a point about the trouble Bernie's gonna have with POC "Hey, I know you murdered my mother, but damned if I won't chip in for you to go buy us some pizza!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:I'm not thrilled about this but Trump actually implementing a set of massive infrastructure projects that aren't just slush funds for his friends are about as likely as him saying he was a secret democrat all along Oh yeah, wonderful. And how are we going to pay for that with promised massive tax cuts on the way? You know how.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:"Hey, I know you murdered my mother, but damned if I won't chip in for you to go buy us some pizza!" "(that pizza is for everybody, right)"
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:it's more about his framing of that being the core of Trump's campaign promises, which... yeah some folks got a point about the trouble Bernie's gonna have with POC I agree but Bernies also too old to run again in 2020. Its all about the movement he represents as opposed to the man itself
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:I agree but Bernies also too old to run again in 2020. Its all about the movement he represents as opposed to the man itself Yeah, he's at the end of his rope. The most he can do is use his clout to propel younger progressives through the party ranks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:I'm not sure what all the single word responses are to that news but isn't that a good thing? I was under the impression compromising with your political rivals to accomplish common goals (in this case- fighting corporate america) was something that was generally viewed as a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I'm making fun of monocausal explanations of Trump's election, you spaz. Pointing out that racism was a driver does not absolve Clinton of her bad campaign. The racists never vote for Democrats.  And Donald Trump got less votes than most Republicans in recent elections. So tell me how the racists did anything at all to get Trump elected. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:Yeah, he's at the end of his rope. The most he can do is use his clout to propel younger progressives through the party ranks. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Acid Haze posted:Oh yeah, wonderful. And how are we going to pay for that with promised massive tax cuts on the way? You know how. um we'll invade Canada for lebensraum and booty, duh Business Gorillas posted:I agree but Bernies also too old to run again in 2020. Its all about the movement he represents as opposed to the man itself The movement he represents is still represented by a guy who sure as poo poo sounds like he's trying to reform the Wall-Builder's image for progressives who aren't personally affected by all the, y'know, registrations and poo poo and actually will just let minorities burn if they get trustbusting out of it or don't have to pay off all their college loans. like maybe that was just a godawfully poorly executed sentence but that's kinda not the reunification of the Democratic base y'all were talking about a few pages ago A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Nov 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
FactsAreUseless posted:Not if that helps to legitimize a Trump administration that could build internment camps for Muslims, jail journalists, or crack down on protesters. So basically progressives should fight against any and all actions taken by Trump because he's Trump? I don't know, I guess that "worked" for the GOP during Obama's presidency but it certainly didn't make the country a better place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:The racists never vote for Democrats. well, they voted for him
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:So basically progressives should fight against any and all actions taken by Trump because he's Trump? I don't know, I guess that "worked" for the GOP during Obama's presidency but it certainly didn't make the country a better place. So you're implying that collaborating with Trump will make the country better? How?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
Tatsuta Age posted:well, they voted for him we're talking about trump, not bernie sanders
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:So basically progressives should fight against any and all actions taken by Trump because he's Trump? I don't know, I guess that "worked" for the GOP during Obama's presidency but it certainly didn't make the country a better place. I refuse to work alongside a fascist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
A compromise on infrastructure spending that amounts to a massive federal handout to Trump's corporate buddies as a "jobs program" is terrible policy, normalizes Trump, and is exactly the kind of thing Schumer would do. Bernie is trying to play a game here and he's being real careful to keep it to poo poo that's actually in his platform, but I think it's more likely to backfire because I don't think the Senate has his shared principles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:You won't be if you don't post "emails emails emails" as a response to "both candidates were bad and more similar than different". Feel free to make an argument, I'd say 90% of the posters in this thread are willing to respond to effort with effort. Except that's not true. You're not the only person trotting out "mental health kindness" as a way to dismiss posters. Tight Booty Shorts posted:Despite our quarrels, i used to think of you as very intelligent and capable. Fojar38 posted:You are fortune-telling, friend, and that is not mentally healthy. We don't know what the SCOTUS will look like, and the Dems will retain influence in the senate. The GOP still can't unilaterally roll those things back. Which is bullshit concern trolling at its finest. Especially when you look at those posts in context. So that's the level of discourse this thread is already at. Business Gorillas posted:Oh my god you're so close to having an actual moment of self reflection I can taste it That all my arguments should just be dismissed out of hand as "broken brain?" If that's what you meant, are you even sure what my arguments are?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:So you're implying that collaborating with Trump will make the country better? How? I'm not implying that, I'm saying if he has specific policy goals that align with progressives what's wrong with supporting them (assuming they aren't bundled with a bunch of horrific poo poo) Look, I can see the appeal to just going straight obstructionist and I'm not even going to say that isn't the best choice, I guess I just feel a lot less sure than most of you
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
i hope we can at least agree that eighth-dimensional chess is not the right path forward for playing politics with the fascists
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
"Sure thing Bernie, hey though quick question before we start do you think muslims should wear a crescent armband or something more like an epaulet?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:I agree but Bernies also too old to run again in 2020. Its all about the movement he represents as opposed to the man itself The movement he represents seems to be advocating economic populism centering around rural whites, while telling POC "You'll get your turn, we just have to give these Trump supporters the benefits first. What, they're talking about internment camps for Muslims? Oh dear, well I hope this doesn't interfere with infrastructure spending.  "
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:I'm not thrilled about this but Trump actually implementing a set of massive infrastructure projects that aren't just slush funds for his friends are about as likely as him saying he was a secret democrat all along Well he is from New York
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2016 20:43
|
|