triple sulk posted:

it's cool that the deplorable thing basically became a public self-labeling by people not worth engaging

anime was right posted:

by not advocating for bisexual rights (socially, they are basically the same in terms of laws) you perpetrate that sexuality is a binary instead of a hosed up maze of feelings. anyone in that maze instantly chooses a side and if you're mostly heterosexual or generally bisexual then some of these people end up in the "being gay is a choice" and also these people are never advocated for or supported so they may not even think that, hey, yeah, if you hosed a dude in college twice and liked it you don't have to hide it or w/e.

it causes a lot of problems in terms of identification and allies and also bisexual erasure just straight up suuuuuuuuuucks.

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

anybody dumb enough to embrace the label of deplorable was never going to vote D anyway, but that doesn't mean calling them garbage was a good idea, since it gives them a reason to vote out of pure spite.

MizPiz posted:

Given that her other options are "Benghazi-Emails-Pizzagate" or "Couldn't even beat Donald Trump," it's the best she's got.

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

anybody dumb enough to embrace the label of deplorable was never going to vote D anyway, but that doesn't mean calling them garbage was a good idea, since it gives them a reason to vote out of pure spite.

Yudo posted:

Embrace it or not, it's best not to insult or minimize the concerns of lots of voters. It doesn't matter who self identified: it was a fantastically dumb thing to say.

Dick Milhous Rock! posted:

which still makes it a dumb thing to say I guess because that's pretty much how they work?

Dick Milhous Rock! posted:

if you read the full quote, it was only a dumb thing to say when the press has the memory of a goldfish and can only process statements in 15 second chunks

Guy Goodbody posted:

Calling out the deplorable parts of Trump's base isn't necessarily dumb. But she said half of his supporters. And then walked it back in a way that implied they all were deplorable.

Don't blame the media, that was a stupid thing to say.

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

anybody dumb enough to embrace the label of deplorable was never going to vote D anyway, but that doesn't mean calling them garbage was a good idea, since it gives them a reason to vote out of pure spite.

Dick Milhous Rock! posted:

i hope that every CNN talking head that enjoyed dunking on Trump spokespeople for 16 months wakes up every morning with the realization that those ludicrous people never were talking to them, and that by giving them all that airtime instead of just calling them out for frauds and con-artists and conspiracy theorists and not giving them the chance to talk so they could rhetorically own them or act smugly aghast they own just as much of this shitshow as anyone else

Dick Milhous Rock! posted:

Nah, trying to court the deplorables is a trap

Energizing and recruiting other people is the better idea

the deplorables will pretend like they'll consider something until brietbart tells them to hate it and they'll head in pull the level for R

trying to appeal to moderate republicans is what lost it for hillary instead of campaigning on her platform and the issues, she just figured that she could beat Trump by highlighting that he was Trump and not giving the democratic base a reason to vote for her

for fucks sake she tried to get kissinger's endorsement

Battle Royale Baby posted:

Hmm yes those deplorables mean nothing to an election. Let's let them be as we celebrate our president elect Clinton over tea and crumpets, shall we?

Yudo posted:

I hope they enjoy waking up in gitmo for committing lèse-majesté if they dare smugness again.

Yudo posted:

I hope they enjoy waking up in gitmo for committing lèse-majesté if they dare smugness again.

anime was right posted:

think of all the great bernie memes we missed

MizPiz posted:

But look at what we got instead:



Totally lol, right?

anime was right posted:

think of all the great bernie memes we missed

Rand alPaul posted:

Condiv posted:

so, the observer is pretty obviously a trump mouthpiece, and it's currently advocating for reinstating the active measures working group

http://observer.com/2016/11/the-kremlin-didnt-sink-hillary-obama-did/

here's a little article from the atlantic about the author of that opinion piece

Weeping Wound posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRNtVM8NC1I

MysteriousStranger posted:

It would have been stupid.

1. NYC is a liberal city that gives Democrats a lot of power, finance is the home business there. Like it or not team D is team finance.
2. Bankers are socially liberal and that's what counts for liberalism. Goldman Sachs is part of the Human Rights Campaign. Attacking them is attacking the people who finance and give the power to make real social change happen.
3. Attacks against bankers smack too much of attacks against Jews, it's racist and thus we should NEVER engage in it.
4. We don't want working class whites in our party. Their votes will dilute minority votes and we might have to end up taking money from upper class socially liberal whites to give poo poo to white trash.

Concerned Citizen posted:

if wall street reform wasn't meaningful, i would suspect wall street would not be desperately trying to repeal the reforms.

i get that most of the reforms are largely invisible because federal agents didn't rush into goldman sachs and shoot everyone that did not submit to the cfpb, but wall street has had ongoing restructuring caused by the reforms which will lead to a smaller and more stable financial sector. it's not full socialism now, but there were significant reforms involved in it.

MysteriousStranger posted:

It would have been stupid.

1. NYC is a liberal city that gives Democrats a lot of power, finance is the home business there. Like it or not team D is team finance.
2. Bankers are socially liberal and that's what counts for liberalism. Goldman Sachs is part of the Human Rights Campaign. Attacking them is attacking the people who finance and give the power to make real social change happen.
3. Attacks against bankers smack too much of attacks against Jews, it's racist and thus we should NEVER engage in it.
4. We don't want working class whites in our party. Their votes will dilute minority votes and we might have to end up taking money from upper class socially liberal whites to give poo poo to white trash.

theflyingexecutive posted:

drat, the Borowitz Report finally picked up some teeth

MysteriousStranger posted:

It would have been stupid.

1. NYC is a liberal city that gives Democrats a lot of power, finance is the home business there. Like it or not team D is team finance.
2. Bankers are socially liberal and that's what counts for liberalism. Goldman Sachs is part of the Human Rights Campaign. Attacking them is attacking the people who finance and give the power to make real social change happen.
3. Attacks against bankers smack too much of attacks against Jews, it's racist and thus we should NEVER engage in it.
4. We don't want working class whites in our party. Their votes will dilute minority votes and we might have to end up taking money from upper class socially liberal whites to give poo poo to white trash.

Rand alPaul posted:

etalian posted:

A valuable glimpse into the mind of a bad dem.


Regulating wall street is anti-semitic because jews work there!

Tight Booty Shorts posted:

"Significant" reforms and then you proceed to not list any of them and ignore the fact that Wallstreet is at the exact same place they were before the Great Recession.

I suggest we kick "team finance" the gently caress out of our party and send them back to the party they belong to, which is the party of financial deregulation and insane bonuses for executives, Aka the Republican Party.