|
So how long before the Economist does a puff piece on Fillon on how he is, through some tortured logic, the new "centrist" that Europe needs?
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 08:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:Too late, Fillon for France is the next stop on the neoliberal train to hell. Heck, Blair has been making noises in the UK so we can get some real old school Blairism. Yeah, at this point it is more about rebuilding than stopping the train. It is going to be a train-wreck but it is going to stay that way as long as the only option is third-way centrism. Also, I think the spin the Economist may take is that Fillon may be "a little to the right" but maybe that is what Europe really needs and craves. That said, I think the actual Left needs to be a bit more canny as well. I think Corbyn's fault (for example) is he isn't that great of a politician and certainly isn't a firebrand, and the opposite is necessary. Also, Syriza is a good example of what happens when a left-wing party is put in power and then is slowly crushed by a situation it really can't change. Edit: Also, how is it not an embarrassment that Tony Blair, who was a public official 9 years ago is now wealthy enough to throw money at pet projects like he is some type of oligarch? Ardennes fucked around with this message at 09:00 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
Actually the Economist has been "concerned" about Fillon being too pro-Putin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:That said, I think the actual Left needs to be a bit more canny as well. I think Corbyn's fault (for example) is he isn't that great of a politician and certainly isn't a firebrand, and the opposite is necessary. Also, Syriza is a good example of what happens when a left-wing party is put power and then is slowly crushed by a situation it really can't change.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Actually the Economist has been "concerned" about Fillon being too pro-Putin. They were so close and then old Vlad has to mess it up. A Buttery Pastry posted:Well, it could change it. Possibly not in a way that was conducive to the political survival of the party though, or even the literal survival of its members. Syriza or Labour? Syriza was hosed the second they came into government, they had no hope of political survival at that point. The Troika was going to hammer them into little pieces, and they just walked into it. As for Labour, both paths are dire for them but by going left they at least have some hope for the future, returning to the center means they are fighting for shrinking share of the votes with the Lib Dems. I do think they need better leadership, but they don't have any good other options.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Maybe the fact that so many people are going to suffer should be a strong reason why anyone who still gives a poo poo needs to keep on hammering on them. Letting a gently caress-up of this degree pass by is only going to ensure it happens continually in the future (if there is a second chance). Democrats in government are loving terrible. It doesn't matter if a lot of the people who vote for them have good opinions - the politicians themselves are utterly craven and functional sociopaths unable to learn any sort of lesson even in the face of Donald Trump being elected President of the United loving States. gently caress these people. So, who is hammering on them? Internet forums posters? Nobody who they listen to is hammering on them, because they listen to no one. They learn nothing. I intend to run in the Dem primary in 2018 against the New Democrat who represents my district in the House, but I'll be lucky to crack into the double digits for votes. What else can you do? Serious question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Who? Who is going to "hammer on them?" House Democrats just voted Nancy Pelosi to lead them in spite of the total disaster she has been for her party in the House for the last ten years. Why do you think this is? It's probably because, while her leadership may be bad for the party as a whole, it's great for the Democrats in the House who voted her in - they know where they stand with her and what sort of committee and leadership assignments they can expect. They don't care if they're in a permanent minority they only care if they can go back to their constituents and say "I'm in the House Armed Services Committee vote for me" and thereby win election after election. Not to mention, what kind of future are the Democrats building for their party when Chuck "loving" Schumer and Nancy "Loser" Pelosi, old farts that they are, represent the cutting edge of Democratic leadership? Where is the party going when the people leading it are all on Death's loving door? In all honesty, there needs to be a movement that exists outside the Democratic Party and its apparatus but is focused on pushing both its own agenda. I don't see the party itself reforming, if anything they have given the signal they are relatively unfazed about what has happened. At the end of the day, it is the public that has to be the force of change here and if anything the Sanders campaign showed there is still a chance but that change has to come from outside the Democratic Party itself. Also, I think there may eventually need a more solid ideological break between the left and centrists (including much of the media). A lot of liberals were completely tone-deaf about the economic factors going on behind the scene during the election, and they need to be called out about how disastrous that mistake was. If anything the first step at this point is just not shutting up about it, and don't let them pretend that it was just some type of accident.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Syriza or Labour? Syriza was hosed the second they came into government, they had no hope of political survival at that point. The Troika was going to hammer them into little pieces, and they just walked into it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Who? Who is going to "hammer on them?" House Democrats just voted Nancy Pelosi to lead them in spite of the total disaster she has been for her party in the House for the last ten years. Why do you think this is? It's probably because, while her leadership may be bad for the party as a whole, it's great for the Democrats in the House who voted her in - they know where they stand with her and what sort of committee and leadership assignments they can expect. They don't care if they're in a permanent minority they only care if they can go back to their constituents and say "I'm in the House Armed Services Committee vote for me" and thereby win election after election. Not to mention, what kind of future are the Democrats building for their party when Chuck "loving" Schumer and Nancy "Loser" Pelosi, old farts that they are, represent the cutting edge of Democratic leadership? Where is the party going when the people leading it are all on Death's loving door? Go to meetings, make connections ,connect with fight for 15. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 10:06 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Like I think Bannon and gang are evil but as a Democrat, I find the total inability of the HRC campaign to accept any responsibility for their comprehensive abortion of a strategy even more frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Like I think Bannon and gang are evil but as a Democrat, I find the total inability of the HRC campaign to accept any responsibility for their comprehensive abortion of a strategy even more frustrating. Yeah the Obama/Hillary Democrats acting like this is some sort of fluke totally outside of their control (or that they went the high road and were punished for it) is really concerning when you can see Neoliberalism leading to fascism over and over again as regular people either disengage with the system or turn to right wing extremists. Even if they were honorable and outplayed by villains they don't seem to have an answer on how to solve that. I remember being told on this forum years ago that the stuff happening in Europe (Golden Dawn, rise of UKIP's policies, etc) would NEVER happen here by smug Democrats and that we just needed to keep doing the same thing and we would never lose the Presidency again. Welp. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 14:49
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Contrary to popular opinion, I don't think the emails hurt her as much as her ties to Wall Street. After all, the main reason she lost the election was that many Rust Belt Dems flipped and voted for Trump. And they did so not because of the email scandal, but because they got the sense that she was in bed with the financial class and had promised them many things and didn't actually give a poo poo about the working class. I've seen little evidence that rust belt dems voted for Trump in any appreciable numbers, a much more compelling case is that they simply didn't vote at all And yeah Clinton's perceived "being on the take" hurt her as much as anything, the fact that her paid wall street speeches don't mean much doesn't change the fact that Trump effectively weaponized things like that against her She had just a huge rear end pile of baked in negatives on day 1 of the election override367 fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
I'm guessing the Obama->Obama->Trump voters were similar to the Bush->Obama->Romney voters. They really have no political allegiance at all (and care not that much about social issues) and vote based on how hard they are getting hosed over at the present time. There's a few stories written about the midwest people that voted for Obama based on his change message then when they got laid off or their lives continued to suck after the bank bailouts switched to Romney since why the hell not? People overestimate what people in this country want. They want to have a (repeat "A") stable job, recreation time, a promise of some kind of retirement, and a future for their kids. The Democrats have done a lovely job of pushing this so it makes sense (in retrospect) that people would go to the conman selling them a great lie than the person telling them actually their situation is great and I'll bring more of the same. It doesn't really matter that the Republicans are directly responsible for the poo poo they deal with since no one is really pointing that out effectively, especially when Obama spent six years acting like they were bargaining in good faith. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm guessing the Obama->Obama->Trump voters were similar to the Bush->Obama->Romney voters. They really have no political allegiance at all (and care not that much about social issues) and vote based on how hard they are getting hosed over at the present time. I think that a lot of these are basically what could be called "personality voters" -- voters that choose their candidate based on how much they like the personalities of the people involved. In this case, they may have been choosing which of the two candidates they disliked least, but when the choice was between the boorish WWE-loving billionaire who eats KFC on his golden jumbo jet and has a hot young wife, and Hillary Clinton, who is beloved only by her fellow managerial technocrats (sheepishly raises hand), it turns out that they'll plop for the former. It's the same principle in action for various cars I've seen that had Ron Paul 2012 bumper stickers sharing space with Bernie 2016, or one car I saw in Atlanta that had a Johnson 2016 sticker haphazardly placed over a Sanders 2016 bumper sticker. These people aren't voting on policy, necessarily; they're voting because something about Sanders appealed to them that they didn't see in Clinton, so they switched to Johnson (who obviously shares very few substantive policy ideas with Sanders). tl;dr: Obama had more Charisma than Romney. Trump had more Charisma than Clinton. Don't underestimate the impact that that can have.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:I think that a lot of these are basically what could be called "personality voters" -- voters that choose their candidate based on how much they like the personalities of the people involved. In this case, they may have been choosing which of the two candidates they disliked least, but when the choice was between the boorish WWE-loving billionaire who eats KFC on his golden jumbo jet and has a hot young wife, and Hillary Clinton, who is beloved only by her fellow managerial technocrats (sheepishly raises hand), it turns out that they'll plop for the former. It's the same principle in action for various cars I've seen that had Ron Paul 2012 bumper stickers sharing space with Bernie 2016, or one car I saw in Atlanta that had a Johnson 2016 sticker haphazardly placed over a Sanders 2016 bumper sticker. These people aren't voting on policy, necessarily; they're voting because something about Sanders appealed to them that they didn't see in Clinton, so they switched to Johnson (who obviously shares very few substantive policy ideas with Sanders). Yeah I'm thinking charisma is honestly like 80% of what determines a presidential win. The EC is also a huge issue that's working against us but it isn't going anywhere so you can't have a candidate that doesn't at least somewhat appeal to the states Hillary lost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:they're voting because something about Sanders appealed to them that they didn't see in Clinton, so they switched to Johnson (who obviously shares very few substantive policy ideas with Sanders). I'll explain it: Sanders has a penis. Johnson also has a penis. Left-wingers who felt unconsciously uncomfortable with women leaders couldn't vote Clinton or Stein, so they picked Johnson, who is, uh, just slightly more liberal than Trump.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I'll explain it: Sanders has a penis. Johnson also has a penis. Left-wingers who felt unconsciously uncomfortable with women leaders couldn't vote Clinton or Stein, so they picked Johnson, who is, uh, just slightly more liberal than Trump. Also, Stein was a crazy person and a horrible candidate even before you start talking about sexism. But, then again, so was Johnson, so... McMullin was the only other person in the race that was even remotely qualified for the position of president, apart from Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah I'm thinking charisma is honestly like 80% of what determines a presidential win. The EC is also a huge issue that's working against us but it isn't going anywhere so you can't have a candidate that doesn't at least somewhat appeal to the states Hillary lost. It's been a long, long time since the more charismatic candidates isn't the one who eventually won the election. I was too young to follow in '88, it seems like the consensus is that both candidates weren't very charismatic that year? Since 1980, George Bush Sr. is the only president who wasn't leagues more charismatic than their opponent. Reagan, Bill Clinton, and Obama were all charisma personified. GWB went up against Gore and Kerry who are both wooden.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:In all honesty, there needs to be a movement that exists outside the Democratic Party and its apparatus but is focused on pushing both its own agenda.  Democratic Socialists of America
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:It's been a long, long time since the more charismatic candidates isn't the one who eventually won the election. I was too young to follow in '88, it seems like the consensus is that both candidates weren't very charismatic that year? When you compare him to Mondale, Bush was probably the cooler candidate. Democrats stupidly thought the DNC was popular when it was just Obama.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Radish posted:When you compare him to Mondale, Bush was probably the cooler candidate. I still don't think it's stupid when every possible indicator showed her winning solidly up until the last few weeks. edit: there are things the DNC are doing that are stupid, like poorly focusing on state houses since Obama's election. But there's a lot of talk in this thread about obvious failures that are only obvious in hindsight. theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Reading over some of the post election observations and there was a lot of people talking about the Rust Belt and lots of indications what was going to happen which were ignored. Even Bill wanted to put more effort there and there's also the idiotic Schumer quote. Polling definitely was wrong which isn't 100% their fault but they were seriously thinking it was going to be a landslide (with Republicans switching sides to vote for Clinton) up until the final weeks which was massively hubristic when their own people on the ground were raising concerns. The DNC has been losing seats since 2008 when Obama got a bunch in on his coat tails so this isn't out of nowhere. Walker in "ironclad" Wisconsin has won three elections despite being an unlikable idiot, that alone should have been something they looked into. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Apparently even the people who were at the heart of the election can't agree on what happened. PoCs didn't want to vote for an old white lady.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I'll explain it: Sanders has a penis. Johnson also has a penis. Left-wingers who felt unconsciously uncomfortable with women leaders couldn't vote Clinton or Stein, so they picked Johnson, who is, uh, just slightly more liberal than Trump. Ah now everyone who doesn't like  is a misogynist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
I said this to my friend on Election Night, why did we think a person who has been demonized for the span of my whole life was going to win this election? We all most have been loving delusional And we were, you saw it in USPOL, the whole time, any naysayers were shouted down. If you brought up that Clinton was massively unpopular, for far longer than Trump had been, again a whole generation had grown up with Hiliary hate permeating the political atmosphere. The Hiliary fans would remind you that she's only disliked by white men, as if that wasn't a big voting bloc. Chapo Traphouse was right Hiliary Clinton is a Doomsday Cult for a certain type of person. And now we're debating economic policy versus identity politics as if that was what Clinton campaigned on, which it wasn't. She spent months, loving MONTHS! Trying to appeal to moderate Republicans, even everyone could tell you this was going to be about motivating the base abs getting them to turn out. Instead the establishment Democrats showed their hand, they really just want to be the not racist conservative party. gently caress look at how people responded to the Party Conference, with it's crass "patriotism" and especially having Michael loving Bloomberg speak! Why did anyone think that was a good loving idea, that right there should poke loving holes in anyone taking about how this campaign was identity politics, having Mike Stop and Frisk Bloomberg speak at s prime spot at your convention, I'm sure that really convinced BLM activists that the Democrats had their back. And that's the other loving thing, if people brought up that some of the main people in the BLM movement weren't so enthusiastic about Clinton you had posters in USPOL, throwing them under the bus, or how people would respond when BLM disrupted her events, and Clinton would treat them with the utmost disdain or have them removed. And people praised her handling of these protesters, I'm sure that really helped her make the case that she was for them. God that's not even getting into the stupid Abuela poo poo, or the hot sauce or the Hiliary moving to the Right stupid logo, or the worst, I'm With Her. Really, loving really cause that slogan doesn't sound like someone that wants to work for the people. Insanely out of loving touch. And what's worse is I fell for it, I had my misgivings this whole loving election. But I listened to these people figuring maybe I have been to harsh on Clinton, maybe they had a point. Turns out they didn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Yeah I fell for it too. Even at the time I thought the Bloomberg thing and appealing to moderate Republicans was stupid as hell (the moderate Republican voter has been their Quixotic dream for years) but it wouldn't be enough to matter.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah I fell for it too. Even then I thought the Bloomberg thing and appealing to moderate Republicans was stupid as hell but it wouldn't be enough to matter. Same here. Now it's time for a purge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Ah now everyone who doesn't like Not sure what else links the Socialist man of the people Bernie Sanders and the hardline Libertarian Gary Johnson. You literally could not get further politically apart unless you had Hitler and Stalin in the same room. I'm not talking conscious misogyny. Just a subtle discomfort with Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein that I found notable at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
What really annoys me honestly is that since loving 2000 the Democrat line has been "gently caress you leftists." Blaming them for losing Gore the election or for not showing up sufficiently in congressional elections since. All the while they are desperately trying to reach out to "moderates" that never show but also are never blamed. People on this forum used to indignantly claim that there was no reason to appeal to the left because "they won't vote anyway and they don't matter" and still talk about them as traitors when they didn't come out. Obama always had harsh words for people that criticized him from the left but didn't really go much against everyone else at least for the first six years of his presidency. So now that the DNC poster child has lost to Donald Trump, with a larger percentage of Bernie Sanders voters coming out than Clinton voters came out for Obama, we are supposed to NOT blame the leaders for their colossal failures. It's a shame since Clinton actually probably did have the most left leaning platform in a long while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
That just means we have to move EVEN LEFTER. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:That just means we have to move EVEN LEFTER. The issue is that policy doesn't really matter, perception of the candidate does. Which is amazingly stupid (especially that this garbage affected supposedly-intelligent college educated leftists), but there ya go
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:05
|
|
|
I think policy does matter and it affects perception. The Democrats spent twenty years following neo-liberal policy and getting donations from the financial industry while simultaneously tut-tuting leftists as unreasonable and that their ideas were not electable. So when Hillary sucks up Bernie's platform (and then doesn't really sell it) she is not going to be perceived as someone that people can trust to enact that legislation. I mean look at her lame college assistance plan and tell me that is someone that understands recent grads being in ridiculous debt and how that cripples their lives. Even then young people overwhelmingly voted for her despite us being told by Serious Democrats that the youth is a dead end because they don't vote.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Dec 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Not sure what else links the Socialist man of the people Bernie Sanders and the hardline Libertarian Gary Johnson. You literally could not get further politically apart unless you had Hitler and Stalin in the same room. I'm not talking conscious misogyny. Just a subtle discomfort with Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein that I found notable at the time. Maybe the fact that they arent neocons who give private speeches to wall street elites for buckets of cash? A lot of people who loved Bernie love Elizabeth Warren, and as far as i know she doesnt have a penis. The excuses for Hillary about misogyny and the electoral college, blah blah blah are BS. She lost because she does not have the kind of charm or charisma that can energize the base in what is essentially a popularity contest, and she is part of the elite establishment at a time where people are fed up with said establishment. Thats it
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
"Young people and liberals don't turn out to vote so there is no reason to appeal to them!". I read that all the time in this forum, especially during the primary, but it has always struck me as odd...I mean, why the gently caress should they vote if the party can't show they give a poo poo about what those people think. Of course with Hillary they were banking super hard on the African American vote because the Clintons have always been friends with the AA community! Yeah, that worked well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
It's true. Liberalism can't fail, it can only be failed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:"Young people and liberals don't turn out to vote so there is no reason to appeal to them!". I read that all the time in this forum, especially during the primary, but it has always struck me as odd...I mean, why the gently caress should they vote if the party can't show they give a poo poo about what those people think. Yeah it always seemed stupid since even if the youth don't vote immediately you want them to be on your side when they are statistically old enough to probably vote. It always feels with Democrats that they think votes are owed to them out of specific demographics and they write off potential voters since they SHOULD be voting and it's unreasonable to expect the party to have to try. See the people after Hillary lost saying that the voters were the problem and should have come out even if Hillary's campaign was bad when it's the sole job of the candidate to make themselves appealing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The issue is that policy doesn't really matter, perception of the candidate does. Perception matters because the presidential election is writing a blank check for the next 4 years. You can't recall a president if they lied, there are no spot elections. Voting is fundamentally an act of trust. Hillary had no trust so it didn't matter what she said because no one believed what she said mattered or would be what she actually did. Worse is that she was a "predictable and sane" liar. You could trust your distrust. Trump was largely distrusted but had a core of trust and a larger periphery of people who could distrust their distrust. By being unpredictable, people could entertain that maybe he was telling the truth or maybe he would do this or that. That's was the closest thing to hope this election offered to alot of people so they took it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Not sure what else links the Socialist man of the people Bernie Sanders and the hardline Libertarian Gary Johnson. You literally could not get further politically apart unless you had Hitler and Stalin in the same room. I'm not talking conscious misogyny. Just a subtle discomfort with Hillary Clinton and Jill Stein that I found notable at the time. They're both seen as anti Establishment and, cruciallly, honest people who say precisely what they think, a mantle neither Hillary not Trump could claim.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Nate Silver reporting that Trump was +8 with non-college white voters turns out Trump wasn't a weak candidate in any way that mattered
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:48 |
|
|
Pollyanna posted:That just means we have to move EVEN LEFTER. No yeah, you're right we don't need to change anything the Democrats are doing loving great with them controlling state houses and governorships across the country. Oh what's that the Democrats have been in full retreat for over 6 years. I remember 2008-9 when we all thought that was it we've made the Republicans a Rump party for a generation. Only for them to turn it around and gut us like we were the loving VRA. Acting like the Democratic party actually advances any of it's supposed left wing ideas is pure loving madness. Christ it took Gay Republicans to make gay marriage a national thing because Democrats didn't actually want to push to hard for gay rights, in case that alienated some "moderates." That really should be the biggest shame that Democrats couldn't even be the ones behind that law suit. That's all Democrats see their minority and few white working class voters that are left as, assholes that have to vote for them so they can go back to serving their real constitutes, the wealthy. Why haven't the Democrats been hammering that Flint still doesn't have clean loving water! Why are they not out there hammering that, why aren't they hammering on that through out the election, why did they hammer on the fact that Mike loving Pence caused a massive HIV outbreak in his state! The Democrats can't even new loving bothered to campaign against the undeniable Republican gently caress ups Or now people talking about how Bernie really is the racist because he said he would work with Trump on things that we all know Trump had no intention of actually loving doing. But the silence from these same people about how Chuck Schumer couldn't wait to get in front of a mic and tell everyone that he couldn't wait to work with Senate Republicans to make life easier on Wall Street was loving deafening. So yeah everyone from that poo poo rear end bootlicking end of the party can bitch about Bernie all they want. But where the gently caress are your guys? Why is it Bernie out there fighting for the Democratic base? Why is it him trying to reform how people see the Party in the public eye. Where are your guys, where's Chuck Schumer, where's loving Hilliary, yeah her career is loving dead but you would think that she would still be out they're trying to assure people that everything isn't lost, where is Cory loving Booker? Where are these people, why are they not out there trying to rally the base? This whole election season I was told Bernie and his base didn't even count as real Democrats, so why the gently caress is he the one that had to save the party after the Clinton's, the Schumer's and Obama hosed it all up
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:45
|
|