|
Trabisnikof posted:Here's the worst part of the article to me: yeah, iirc his accusations are based on accusations from another candidate, who hired a "handwriting expert" and discovered a ton of the ballots in the election he lost had "the similar signatures". thing is, the other candidate lost by a huge margin, and handwriting experts are bullshit. even repubs on the election comittees are calling his bullshit for what it is. from what i hear though, if he tries to get himself appointed governor a federal court can hear the case.
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:The argument of the neoliberal for why we cannot have what we want always boils down to. :We can't appeal to the white working class because they are all racist and want to burn the gays. good thing the white working class voted for hillary in the majority. it is the white middle class that is the problem
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Pop-o-Matic Trouble posted:http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/11/21/pat_mccrory_is_trying_to_steal_the_north_carolina_governorship.html The ultimate power play would be for him to do this, get sued, and then have the soon-to-be-stacked state supreme court also rule in his favor, with both the outgoing justice and whatever two partisan shits he appoints, being in the majority and refusing to recuse themselves. He's probably going to do it and nothing is going to happen to him or the GOP when they outright steal the election because they know that even if people rioted that'd just give them an excuse to enact martial law.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:good thing the white working class voted for hillary in the majority. it is the white middle class that is the problem Ah by a bare majority which is a huge loss compared by how Obama won them in 2012. So yes as it turns out you neoliberals are always wrong and should get in the back of the line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Michelle Rhee met with Trump but is saying she won't be involved with the administration. One bullet dodged, 2,677 bullets to go
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Gringostar posted:Nice selective quoting, especially when I said it only "had" the potential not that it "would" have happened when asking me about why he specifically didn't actually march thanks, i did it to draw attention to the places where you said the thing you supposedly didn't say. also, my quotes did in fact include your "had the potential" conditional, so i'm not sure why you're complaining other than because i called you out quote:oh, and read my other posts where I made the argument that him walking with protesters wouldn't have done poo poo before that selective quoting yes, you've asserted that repeatedly, but it doesn't matter much that you think it wouldn't have done poo poo. apparently, the dems in wisconsin wanted him there and thought he could help and he promised he would be there marching with them. why is your doomsaying an excuse to ignore his campaign promises and abandon wisconsin dems?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Pop-o-Matic Trouble posted:http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2016/11/21/pat_mccrory_is_trying_to_steal_the_north_carolina_governorship.html http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3798865
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:19
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Ah by a bare majority which is a huge loss compared by how Obama won them in 2012. So yes as it turns out you neoliberals are always wrong and should get in the back of the line.  Can't appeal to a group of people who hate the other groups of your party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:21
|
|
|
Condiv posted:thanks, i did it to draw attention to the places where you said the thing you supposedly didn't say. also, my quotes did in fact include your "had the potential" conditional, so i'm not sure why you're complaining other than because i called you out I don't know how many times I can say this, but it wouldn't have done poo poo to help the cause and might have blown up in his and their faces. That's been my argument from the beginning and one you've done nothing but ignore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
I don't know why this thread keeps losing its head about the whole of Democratic identity. It's not like it's impossible to marry "the rights and wellbeing of the poor" with "the rights and wellbeing of women and minorities". In fact, it would seem that "we're the party of the people, as opposed to the party of the mega-wealthy" would be the obvious Democratic push at this point. Simultaneously addressing the problems of rural and urban demographics has always been a problem logistically but I'm not sure it's ever been a problem rhetorically. Really, the party needs to run somebody who has been helping people on the ground (as opposed to some kind of angel philanthropist); someone who rolls up their sleeves and works hard to address the needs of the downtrodden. I'm not sure that person is or ever was Bernie but I'm sure my hypothetical person would share a ticket with him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Estimates are 20 million Trump voters will see an immediate pay cut. Man I want to have empathy for these people but welp
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I don't know why this thread keeps losing its head about the whole of Democratic identity. It's not like it's impossible to marry "the rights and wellbeing of the poor" with "the rights and wellbeing of women and minorities". In fact, it would seem that "we're the party of the people, as opposed to the party of the mega-wealthy" would be the obvious Democratic push at this point. Simultaneously addressing the problems of rural and urban demographics has always been a problem logistically but I'm not sure it's ever been a problem rhetorically. This isn't the impossible since it is the same thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Ah by a bare majority which is a huge loss compared by how Obama won them in 2012. They're also simultaneously irredeemably racist. Their voting for Trump has nothing to do with anti-establishment attitudes, it's just a whitelash... against their own votes from 4-8 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:26
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
zegermans posted:Man I want to have empathy for these people but welp I don't. Hope that big "gently caress you" to the establishment was worth it you dumbasses.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:If you suggest a universal basic income to unemployed Trump voters in depressed rural areas, they'd spit in your eye and tar-and-feather you as an out-of-touch liberal. They want JOBS not handouts! Liberals telling them "those jobs are never coming back but here's how we can help" is WHY THEY ARE SO ANGRY. People aren't super in love with the idea of their whole lives depending on a handout from the remote, callous political elites who sent their way of living to a Chinese slave factory in the name of improved Q4 dividends and haven't regretted it for a second (or for that matter who used the same legal apparatus to push them into a ghetto and deny them full citizenship at gunpoint for generations), no, and they aren't ever going to be; mincome would be a workable idea in a system that hadn't so totally disenfranchised those it's purporting to act in the interests of, but a legitimate progressive party (let alone a legitimately successful progressive party) in the US would need to firstly focus on empowering people to secure their own wellbeing independent of the whims of an aristocracy they have limited recourse to, not just foam about how ungrateful people are for the tenuous half-measure of voluntary charity they've been doled out from the systems they (rightly) no longer trust. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Gringostar posted:I don't know how many times I can say this, but it wouldn't have done poo poo to help the cause and might have blown up in his and their faces. That's been my argument from the beginning and one you've done nothing but ignore. i've addressed it plenty of times. i've told you that you don't know that for sure, i've told you that people in the state felt differently, and i've even shown you that people were begging him to get more involved. you just refuse to admit that you might be wrong btw, if you want a more recent example of dems abandoning wisconsin (this very election) then here's this: http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-clinton-lost-michigan-wisconsin-2016-11?r=US&IR=T quote:In Wisconsin, local campaign officials were forced to raise $1 million in last-minute get-out-the-vote funds after Clinton's national campaign declined to provide it, operatives told The Huffington Post. Condiv fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Mendrian posted:I don't know why this thread keeps losing its head about the whole of Democratic identity. It's not like it's impossible to marry "the rights and wellbeing of the poor" with "the rights and wellbeing of women and minorities". In fact, it would seem that "we're the party of the people, as opposed to the party of the mega-wealthy" would be the obvious Democratic push at this point. Simultaneously addressing the problems of rural and urban demographics has always been a problem logistically but I'm not sure it's ever been a problem rhetorically. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Michelle Rhee met with Trump but is saying she won't be involved with the administration. One bullet dodged, 2,677 bullets to go Michelle Rhee is a weird situation where she is a bad person, but is probably the best bad person possible for a Trump admin job, because she is super focused on education employment reform and charters and not super focused on privatization as a goal in and of itself and funneling tax-payer money to religious schools like any other Trump pick would be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
1-800-DOCTORB posted:Would Trump have won if he were against Obama running for a third term? (assuming he was allowed a third term) He'd have a fair chance, probably. It's an interesting question, though. On the one hand, Obama's personal popularity and approval ratings remain high. On the other hand, Trump voters were very clear that "more of the same" is not acceptable anymore and that some meaningful change from the Obama era was necessary - and as charismatic and popular as Obama remains, even he would have a hell of a time trying to sell the idea that a third term would bring significant change from the previous two terms. Like, I know "Hillary bad candidate" is practically a meme at this point, but I don't see how in the hell Obama could possibly have sold an economic message to people who think the economy has been bad under the Obama administration. icantfindaname posted:The second half of that article is a giant cop out saying there's no measurable evidence for it, but it's still sexist that people dislike Hillary. If there's no evidence, IMO, it's entirely fair to dismiss the idea "You’re less than 40. You don’t have any children. You don’t use your husband’s name. You practice law. Does it concern you that maybe other people feel that you don’t fit the image that we’ve created for the governor’s wife in Arkansas?” If you want empirical evidence of sexism you might as well look at Hillary's entire political career, and the considerable lengths she went to in order to try to mitigate its effects. override367 posted:Judging by Obama being elected twice and still being so popular that he would have easily destroyed Trump, yeah I think so? Yeah, the famously polite and good-natured campaign that Trump ran really proves the ineffectiveness of negative campaigning. He campaigned on prosecuting his political opponent, I don't think the problem is that Hillary was too mean. Mendrian posted:I don't know why this thread keeps losing its head about the whole of Democratic identity. It's not like it's impossible to marry "the rights and wellbeing of the poor" with "the rights and wellbeing of women and minorities". In fact, it would seem that "we're the party of the people, as opposed to the party of the mega-wealthy" would be the obvious Democratic push at this point. Simultaneously addressing the problems of rural and urban demographics has always been a problem logistically but I'm not sure it's ever been a problem rhetorically. It's actually incredibly difficult to marry "the rights and wellbeing of the poor" with "the rights and wellbeing of women and minorities". We know this because the Dems have tried that, repeatedly, over and over again, ever since the Civil Rights Act was signed and the white working class all immediately jumped ship from the Democrats for some weird reason.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Michelle Rhee is a weird situation where she is a bad person, but is probably the best bad person possible for a Trump admin job, because she is super focused on education employment reform and charters and not super focused on privatization as a goal in and of itself and funneling tax-payer money to religious schools like any other Trump pick would be. She's really great if what you're into is selling union-busting and charter schools to the love-me-I'm-a-liberals. If that's not your bag (lol "employment reform") she's possibly the most poisonous option outside Kent Hovind
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:36
|
|
|
Yeah, Michelle Rhee is aptly named because after hearing about her charter school activism I produce a lengthy bat-like screech whenever I read her name. My co-workers are concerned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:good thing the white working class voted for hillary in the majority. it is the white middle class that is the problem Yes exactly. What's their loving deal anyway? Vote to further gently caress over the "lazy and stupid" poors so they can hold moral superiority over them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
SeANMcBAY posted:https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/801139996153573376 Nytimes logo even looks like trump
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:She's really great if what you're into is selling union-busting and charter schools to the love-me-I'm-a-liberals. If that's not your bag (lol "employment reform") she's possibly the most poisonous option outside Kent Hovind I said employment reform, because her two big things in D.C. were standardized testing measures and performance pay for teachers and dramatically changing the administration side (lots more at the school level, lots less at the district level). It involved lots of jobs that were non-union already. She explicitly ruled out religious schools with taxpayer money, even though it was a fairly popular idea among the black community in D.C. That puts her above almost every other likely DOE pick for Trump. She is bad, but the least bad likely choice. Since she is out, look for a federal version of the Louisiana school reform plan under Jindal. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It's actually incredibly difficult to marry "the rights and wellbeing of the poor" with "the rights and wellbeing of women and minorities". We know this because the Dems have tried that, repeatedly, over and over again, ever since the Civil Rights Act was signed and the white working class all immediately jumped ship from the Democrats for some weird reason. People who think they have it bad don't really want to hear that anyone else has it worse. In fact they will flip the gently caress out when you so much as hint that might be the case. And people who devote most of their energy to thinking about how bad they have it really don't want to be lumped together with the people they hate, because in their minds that's just making things worse for poor ol' them. If the left doesn't want to jettison white men entirely they should craft messages that frame policies that would help everyone as policies designed specifically for the exclusive benefit of white men. The balkanization of media in the internet age can actually help this. Talk to those shitheads within their bubble and trust that they'll never leave it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:40
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:People aren't super in love with the idea of their whole lives depending on a handout from the remote, callous political elites who sent their way of living to a Chinese slave factory in the name of improved Q4 dividends and haven't regretted it for a second (or for that matter who used the same legal apparatus to push them into a ghetto and deny them full citizenship at gunpoint for generations), no, and they aren't ever going to be; mincome would be a workable idea in a system that hadn't so totally disenfranchised those it's purporting to act in the interests of, but a legitimate progressive party (let alone a legitimately successful progressive party) in the US would need to firstly focus on empowering people to secure their own wellbeing independent of the whims of an aristocracy they have limited recourse to, not just foam about how ungrateful people are for the tenuous half-measure of voluntary charity they've been doled out from the systems they (rightly) no longer trust. I can't see mincome being popular among people who bitch about welfare because it gives their tax dollars to lazy layabouts who don't have the respectable work ethic to go get a job on their own. Nor, for that matter, would it be popular among the people who bitch about immigrants taking their economic opportunities. I realize the usual response is "mm-hrm, actually literally all progressive positions poll well, therefore we are objectively right and the masses are just being misled by the right-wing conspiracy", but how many "mincome for everyone" polls clarify that everyone includes "yes, even the minorities you think are lazy"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
Confounding Factor posted:Yes exactly. What's their loving deal anyway? Vote to further gently caress over the "lazy and stupid" poors so they can hold moral superiority over them? Yes Edit: this only pertains to the white people screwing white people. If POC are included racism is the bigger driving force Mr Hootington fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:People who think they have it bad don't really want to hear that anyone else has it worse. In fact they will flip the gently caress out when you so much as hint that might be the case. And people who devote most of their energy to thinking about how bad they have it really don't want to be lumped together with the people they hate, because in their minds that's just making things worse for poor ol' them. Is this really what the answer comes down to? If the majority is going to get conned we might as well con them for the good of everyone. I could be sold on it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:45
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I can't see mincome being popular among people who bitch about welfare because it gives their tax dollars to lazy layabouts who don't have the respectable work ethic to go get a job on their own. Nor, for that matter, would it be popular among the people who bitch about immigrants taking their economic opportunities. I realize the usual response is "mm-hrm, actually literally all progressive positions poll well, therefore we are objectively right and the masses are just being misled by the right-wing conspiracy", but how many "mincome for everyone" polls clarify that everyone includes "yes, even the minorities you think are lazy"? I really hope people can get over this mindset someday, because we're going to have town up to the fact that a lot of people will have to work a lot less thanks to automation and such.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Notorious R.I.M. posted:Is this really what the answer comes down to? If the majority is going to get conned we might as well con them for the good of everyone. If you've got better ideas I'm totally open to them, but conning like this has been the secret to success for pretty much every progressive policy in the past. It's the Huey Long strategy and it works. Confounding Factor posted:Yes exactly. What's their loving deal anyway? Vote to further gently caress over the "lazy and stupid" poors so they can hold moral superiority over them? People don't vote for policies, people vote for parties. See, each policy idea has to have its own little messaging campaign where you introduce what the policy is, who supports it, what its effects would be, and why you should vote for it. That's all well and good - there are good policy advertisements and bad ones, and they penetrate with varying degrees of success. But they are completely drowned out by the tidal wave, the absolute lifetime of monolithic messaging that the parties themselves put out. It's basically "studies show this berry juice has antioxidants that-" vs. "DRINK COKE." Tiny Brontosaurus fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Nov 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:If you've got better ideas I'm totally open to them, but conning like this has been the secret to success for pretty much every progressive policy in the past. It's the Huey Long strategy and it works. it would be really cool for once to see dems who acted like they weren't interested in economic or social justice, but once they got power passed the most progressive policies ever. kinda like an inverse scott walker that promises to deport tons of immigrants but then opens the borders and implements mincome
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I really hope people can get over this mindset someday, because we're going to have town up to the fact that a lot of people will have to work a lot less thanks to automation and such. The Protestant work ethic and the fetishization of work, particularly blue-collar work, is already coming back to bite us, and will continue to do so as the percentage of the population able to work falls thanks to automation and increases in efficiency. This should be a good thing, but if we can't get over the idea that everyone must work or die, it's going to cause or contribute to enormous amounts of human suffering. Picture a world in which only ten percent of the population is even able to work, and everyone else is at best stuck on some sort of barely-sufficient dole. e: if you're into nerd poo poo, we're headed for the Expanse, not the Culture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it would be really cool for once to see dems who acted like they weren't interested in economic or social justice, but once they got power passed the most progressive policies ever. kinda like an inverse scott walker that promises to deport tons of immigrants but then opens the borders and implements mincome I agree... let's call it the Let Blue Dogs Lie campaign...
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i've addressed it plenty of times. i've told you that you don't know that for sure, i've told you that people in the state felt differently, and i've even shown you that people were begging him to get more involved. you just refuse to admit that you might be wrong I know for sure that Obama walking with them wouldn't have changed the outcome when (a) Walker ran and won on loving over unions (b) Obama and the democrats lost huge in 2010. You seem intent on carrying on about how if only Obama did more things would have been different when Walker was elected in part as a rebuke of Obama trying to do things. I've also not once said he was right to not show up, I've said he knew about (a) and (b) which is why he probably didn't. Condiv posted:btw, if you want a more recent example of dems abandoning wisconsin (this very election) then here's this: http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-clinton-lost-michigan-wisconsin-2016-11?r=US&IR=T Yes, Clinton hosed up huge there. This is absolutely not in dispute.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it would be really cool for once to see dems who acted like they weren't interested in economic or social justice, but once they got power passed the most progressive policies ever. kinda like an inverse scott walker that promises to deport tons of immigrants but then opens the borders and implements mincome Ladies and gentlemen, it's time for...dog-whistle equality.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Quorum posted:The Protestant work ethic and the fetishization of work, particularly blue-collar work, is already coming back to bite us, and will continue to do so as the percentage of the population able to work falls thanks to automation and increases in efficiency. This should be a good thing, but if we can't get over the idea that everyone must work or die, it's going to cause or contribute to enormous amounts of human suffering. Picture a world in which only ten percent of the population is even able to work, and everyone else is at best stuck on some sort of barely-sufficient dole. Eh. By the time AI is advanced enough to run the economy from end to end it should also be advanced enough to figure out a solution. And I think we're a good deal further away from AI takeover than people realize.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Has a sitting president ever walked with strikers? I'm not sure it's productive to condemn Obama for not doing something I've never heard of a president doing ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Has a sitting president ever walked with strikers? I'm not sure it's productive to condemn Obama for not doing something I've never heard of a president doing ever. Nope. Several have broken them, but non have marched with them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I can't see mincome being popular among people who bitch about welfare because it gives their tax dollars to lazy layabouts who don't have the respectable work ethic to go get a job on their own. Nor, for that matter, would it be popular among the people who bitch about immigrants taking their economic opportunities. I realize the usual response is "mm-hrm, actually literally all progressive positions poll well, therefore we are objectively right and the masses are just being misled by the right-wing conspiracy", but how many "mincome for everyone" polls clarify that everyone includes "yes, even the minorities you think are lazy"? This is because the framing is bullshit and we need to fix the framing. Bringing up minorities or people who are lazy and don't want to work etc only works because we let it. The focus needs to be on the people who are the cause for the suffering. You lost your job because the factory shut down? Bring up that the company that owned the factory is still making money, hand over fist. They gave you an unfair deal where they asked you to invest your time, money, home, your entire life in a job where they invested so little they're just fine with up and leaving. They cheated you out of what you already earned and deserved. They were allowed to get away with it before but they won't now, and we're going to make sure they pay you back what they owe with interest. If you stop letting the discussion go towards whether or not it's other poor peoples' faults and towards focusing the blame on whose fault it actually is, that's how progress can be made. Identify causes and solutions to problems as opposed to trying to shut down every nonsense conspiracy theory one by one. The people who are solely motivated by racial animus can't be convinced of anything anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 05:35 |
|
|
Politico Editor Resigns After Doxxing White Nationalist Leaderquote:A Politico editor has resigned after publishing what he said were addresses for prominent white nationalist Richard Spencer on Facebook. I have to admit, I wouldn't have expected a Politico editor of all people to go full-on "bash the fash".
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2016 00:00
|
|
