|
Homeless Friend posted:Lol a retweet of hers Which political party are we talking about again?
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:"But [this was] probably not worth concentrating on" is a pretty succinct analysis of the Clinton campaign's messaging strategy, yeah. Right, you can't convince people who have decided that racism isn't a dealbreaker to not vote for someone because they're racist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Speaking as a Jew who is particularly touchy about antisemitism I actually don't get why people were mad at CNN for putting the "alt-right guy questions if Jews are human" headline in its crawl line Like, their thesis in doing that was "look how loving far gone the alt-right is that this is something they are unashamed to talk about", they're not implicitly endorsing them by bringing it up. I want people talking about antisemitism in this country; I hate that everyone has been denying it's there for my whole life. redneck nazgul posted:once again, the democrats are going to define themselves by their opponent, and they're going to lose because the GOP gets to say "well, yeah, we have to undo eight years of OBAMA" Yeah every single incumbent Presidential election of my whole life has taught us the lesson that it's not loving enough to campaign on not being your opponent. The last time someone beat a Presidential incumbent was Clinton in 1992 and he was able to do that because his campaign message was better than GHWB's and he was orders of magnitude more charismatic too. We cannot be complacent. We need to run someone good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
Nameless_Steve posted:Oh, no, Cory Booker! He likes the idea of charter schools and doesn't completely loving hate the banks, he might as well be a Republican! Um "loving hating the banks" is actually an issue with widespread appeal that is also the morally correct position to take, so I would want that quality in a candidate for sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
Completely loving hating the banks is my #1 most important issue and the reason I voted for Sanders in the primary
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
loquacius posted:Completely loving hating the banks is my #1 most important issue and the reason I voted for Sanders in the primary 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
loquacius posted:Like, their thesis in doing that was "look how loving far gone the alt-right is that this is something they are unashamed to talk about", they're not implicitly endorsing them by bringing it up. I want people talking about antisemitism in this country; I hate that everyone has been denying it's there for my whole life. it's honestly pretty loving suspect of the mainstream media and the reason why i won't be surprised once they start reporting mass executions as something completely sedate basically eat the rich
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Also what is with people theorycrafting an 8 year Trump presidency? He won't run in 2020. You can tell he already doesn't want to be there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Without a moral narrative the Democrats will continue to be crushed. Cory Booker seems like a fun guy to hang around but he's got pretty much the same politics as the people who got clobbered this election. Charter schools are one of the biggest current threats to our future and should be roundly demonized as such.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Also what is with people theorycrafting an 8 year Trump presidency? He won't run in 2020. You can tell he already doesn't want to be there. Trump absolutely will run in 2020, are you kidding me?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Serf posted:Trump absolutely will run in 2020, are you kidding me? A 74-year-old Trump who clearly didn't even want to be president will not go for a second term
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:A 74-year-old Trump who clearly didn't even want to be president will not go for a second term The man has an ego roughly the size of Jupiter. He will not turn down the chance to continue being the most famous and talked-about person in the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:A 74-year-old Trump who clearly didn't even want to be president will not go for a second term he wanted the title and authority, not the position nor responsibility he'll run again if he's healthy enough and continues to have pence there to do all the actual work Serf posted:The man has an ego roughly the size of Jupiter. He will not turn down the chance to continue being the most famous and talked-about person in the world. also this
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
The only way Trump doesn't run in 2020 is if he gets impeached (unlikely) or cancels the elections (slightly more likely)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
Trump doesn't want to do the actual job, but he wants to Be The President and have people call him Mr. President and have world leaders say "Congratulations, Mr. President" and have rallies with crowds cheering for their lovely lovely president. He's so running in 2020. And he'll run again in 2024 and claim he was never the president and no one actually cares about the 22nd Amendment anyway, and there's a nonzero chance he'll get away with it. Also, it is long past time to quit underestimating Donald Trump. He's a garbage person but he was not a garbage campaigner and the Clinton campaign's failure to take him seriously as a threat is one of the numerous mistakes they made.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
lmao at Dems that still don't see that we HAVE to hate banks to win. Plus it is the morally correct position to hate banks. The only people that want to protect bankers are the people being paid by bankers. haven't any of these mother fuckers ever seen It's A Wonderful Life? Hating bankers is an American tradition and we have a responsibility to our forefathers and the American people to poo poo on bankers and the Republicans sure aren't going to do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:lmao at Dems that still don't see that we HAVE to hate banks to win. Plus it is the morally correct position to hate banks. The only people that want to protect bankers are the people being paid by bankers. I mean our next President campaigned successfully on hating the banks and wall street and all that. And he'll turn around and give them everything they want while his base eats it up because lol nothing matters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:demographics r destiny demographics are highly suggestive
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:04
|
|
|
Things current bankers have done in American history that people remember: -taken people's farms from them -taken people's houses from them -something about crashing the stock market -denied black people loans because of their skin color
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
We don't have to hate banks on principle. They're a necessary institution. But right now they have way too much loving political power and are using it to more efficiently rip off everyone else. The banks don't need to be literally burned to the ground, but they do need to be put back in their place. Wall Street has no political opposition right now and they're walking all over us. They require a counterbalance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
Serf posted:I mean our next President campaigned successfully on hating the banks and wall street and all that. And he'll turn around and give them everything they want while his base eats it up because lol nothing matters. yeah, and that is why Republicans suck and Dems should be campaigning on hating the banks and wall street and actually following through.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:Things current bankers have done in American history that people remember: Also on an individual level, they steal poor people's money literally all the time via shady practices loquacius posted:We don't have to hate banks on principle. They're a necessary institution. But right now they have way too much loving political power and are using it to more efficiently rip off everyone else. The banks don't need to be literally burned to the ground, but they do need to be put back in their place. Wall Street has no political opposition right now and they're walking all over us. They require a counterbalance. I think the concept of making money off the failure of customers and the poorest members of society is a cancer that needs to be excised, and unfortunately that cancer is at the very core of modern banking
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:yeah, and that is why Republicans suck and Dems should be campaigning on hating the banks and wall street and actually following through. but how can cory booker hate the bankers when he himself is made of bankers? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:lmao at Dems that still don't see that we HAVE to hate banks to win. Plus it is the morally correct position to hate banks. The only people that want to protect bankers are the people being paid by bankers. i very strongly dislike cory booker and i hope he doesn't run. i felt some glee when i heard cory booker was whining to people about not being vetted for vp by the hillary campaign. that said, the whole "ugh banks" thing is pretty new - since the 2008 collapse. no one gave a gently caress about banks in 2004 or 2000. finance was a great and lucrative career for your kid to get into, something they could brag about to their friends. politics are fluid, in 4 years we might be talking about the iran war a whole lot more than having a battle to the death about whether we should break up the banks or just regulate them really heavily.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:yeah, and that is why Republicans suck and Dems should be campaigning on hating the banks and wall street and actually following through. I agree. We should be funding ourselves through grassroots movements and small personal donations on a grand scale. Convince people you'll fight for them and they'll pitch you lunch money. But we gotta start on a local level and get to work proving that we're not just talk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Serf posted:I agree. We should be funding ourselves through grassroots movements and small personal donations on a grand scale. Convince people you'll fight for them and they'll pitch you lunch money. But we gotta start on a local level and get to work proving that we're not just talk. I mean look how much a certain primary candidate earned through small personal donations no salt
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
We absolutely need more local-level game though, that's the reason our bench is so thin Luckily Ellison knows this and will push it hard
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
loquacius posted:We don't have to hate banks on principle. They're a necessary institution. But right now they have way too much loving political power and are using it to more efficiently rip off everyone else. The banks don't need to be literally burned to the ground, but they do need to be put back in their place. Wall Street has no political opposition right now and they're walking all over us. They require a counterbalance. we need somebody to take the position of BURN ALL BANKS NOW so we can get actual good controls passed after bankers are done making GBS threads and pissing themselves in terror
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
loquacius posted:We don't have to hate banks on principle. I hate them on interest
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
we should be starting from a position of "A noose from every lamppost on wall st" and then allow ourselves to get talked back to radical reforms on the power of the finance sector.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Bushiz posted:we should be starting from a position of "A noose from every lamppost on wall st" and then allow ourselves to get talked back to radical reforms on the power of the finance sector. just wheel out a guillotine and give all your anti-bank speeches in front of it. don't bring it up, and refuse to acknowledge it's existence
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:I hate them on interest A real good post
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
loquacius posted:We don't have to hate banks on principle. They're a necessary institution. But right now they have way too much loving political power and are using it to more efficiently rip off everyone else. The banks don't need to be literally burned to the ground, but they do need to be put back in their place. Wall Street has no political opposition right now and they're walking all over us. They require a counterbalance. Replace them with credit unions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
gently caress me http://nypost.com/2016/12/04/nancy-pelosi-i-dont-think-democrats-want-a-new-direction/ quote:Pelosi was re-elected Democratic leader last week after a surprising challenge from Ohio Rep. Tim Ryan, who argued Dems must do more to speak to working-class voters in the Rust Belt and not just coastal liberal elites. Pelosi batted back the threat to her reign with a 134-63 win, and has since downplayed the dire straits for the Democratic Party as cyclical changes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:gently caress me She's not wrong on that last point. Also, Pelosi beating Tim Ryan is a good thing because Tim Ryan would be a republican in the late 90s, and Pelosi knows how to obstruct in a minority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:54
|
|
|
On the one hand, I do think that Pelosi is a very effective legislator and exactly the sort of person we want marshaling the Dem caucus if Paul Ryan actually does try to essentially abolish the welfare state. On the other hand, gently caress me, it's incredibly tone-deaf and stupid to assume that Dem governors and Congressman are gonna sprout up and win elections in 2018 sui generis without the DNC putting in a LOT of work in the next 18 months
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:gently caress me Two thoughts: Past Performance is Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results and Why would we want to be stuck in this tug-of-war where the Republicans dismantle things every 8 years and then we fix them for the 8 years after that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:gently caress me Dems only "came in big" during Bush after he spent six years nearly running the country into the ground, and only won the subsequent election because he actually did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:01
|
|
|
Joementum posted:This was my favorite poll finding of 2016: the 2% of Floridians who think Hillary is literally a demon and are voting for her. You can't make me choose between baal'mammon and baal'zebub
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 17:09 |
|
|
2% of florida: hail satan
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:07
|
|