|
loquacius posted: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 It's like that image of "is the n word as bad as cracker" and five upset black people and a white guy talking. Everyone agreed instantly in the segment but the visual comedy of that screen grab lives on.
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
Next Time I'll Vote Democrat
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Pollyanna posted:gently caress me Losing control over basically the entire federal government and most of the state level governments is actually a good thing! Homeless Friend posted:I'm taking a journey through anti-Bernie twitter and So in the end, its actually the Hillarysistahs that are the internal threat to the Democratic Party?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
McCrory concedes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvNSmAZs_Hc
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
pelosi winning house minority leader isn't the end of the world as long as she doesn't interfere with ellison's populism. which, considering the state of the DNC, she'll have to be bribed way more than she already is to actually push
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
MizPiz posted: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. And you think Trump will do better than Bush?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
pelosi said a bad thing she must be purged who should be minority leader if not the one who's run a minority effectively for six years and has very tight control over her caucus
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
the fact that a blue dog democrat ran against her and not any other progressive congressman speaks volumes as to what the actually progressives dems (who are most prominent in the house compared to the senate) want fwiw
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
OK, real talk, how many of you have been in leadership positions before? Because sometimes you have to put on your leadership hat and go out and say some stuff you know is bullshit to keep people motivated. You can't rally people around a hopeless cause, so sometimes you use optimism to get the needed work done. Saying the loss has a silver lining acknowledges it is lovely but not hopeless. Cause if it's hopeless we should all just be having a giant end of the world orgy instead of doing politics. As much as I would love for Pelosi to come out and eviscerate Clinton and the rest of the party and vow to end the Dem's relationship with all corporate lobbyists, we're going to need those Pantsuit Nation, safety pin wearing mother fuckers in the coalition. Use a little honey and a big stick to keep them in line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Zikan posted:the fact that a blue dog democrat ran against her and not any other progressive congressman speaks volumes as to what the actually progressives dems (who are most prominent in the house compared to the senate) want fwiw well if i can't trust seth moulton and stephen lynch, who can i trust?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:OK, real talk, how many of you have been in leadership positions before? Hmm yes "pragmatism" has never steered us wrong before
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:OK, real talk, how many of you have been in leadership positions before? pragmatism doesn't work when negotiating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
yeah, she's probably our best bet for minority leader, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't start pressuring her to recognize that we need change, and soon. just cause she can do the job doesn't mean I have to like her, and I'm still gonna rail against her like I would clinton had she won. e: also pragmatism is not gonna help us here yeah
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:OK, real talk, how many of you have been in leadership positions before? I'm not even sure we have a big stick, let alone know it'll actually be used.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
UHD posted:pelosi said a bad thing she must be purged clearly the progressive option would have been 'literally who? The ex-republican who's actively avoided doing anything but now wanted to jump in and ride a wave of anger'. anime was right posted:pragmatism doesn't work when negotiating. it's the literal foundation of negotiating, come on dude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:clearly the progressive option would have been 'literally who? The ex-republican who's actively avoided doing anything but now wanted to jump in and ride a wave of anger'. Wait, were you one of the people who thought Hillary had the right idea of campaigning on modest reform because pragmatism was how negotiation was done? I remember a bunch of people getting mad at the idea that you should start with big reforms to capture imaginations and negotiate from there, because thats not how negotiation was done at their local HOA meetings! And now an idiot who promised a big stupid wall is going to be president
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
The thing I wanna know is where Lincoln Chafee is in all this. The field is open!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:I remember a bunch of people getting mad at the idea that you should start with big reforms to capture imaginations and negotiate from there, because thats not how negotiation was done at their local HOA meetings! pretty sure this is actually how you end up with legions of disenchanted liberals who go to war with their own party for creating toothless awful reforms that do nothing
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
MizPiz posted: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. He only got those 6 years because of 9/11 boosting all Republicans in the 2002 midterms, and Bush still being popular due to rally around the flag. Without it, they would have lost the senate by a significant amount. 2002 is the sole exception, and a pretty obvious one why. In every other midterm when Republicans have controlled the whitehouse, Dems walked away with at least one chamber of Congress. This dates back for as long as Republicans have existed. Fulchrum has issued a correction as of 18:54 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:it's the literal foundation of negotiating, come on dude. This is why the Dems deserve to lose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:it's the literal foundation of negotiating, come on dude. The Republicans are not going to come to the table negotiating in good faith for any of their proposals
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:pretty sure this is actually how you end up with legions of disenchanted liberals who go to war with their own party for creating toothless awful reforms that do nothing And promising modest nothing reforms while actively making GBS threads on anyone who wants more gets you totally shut out of all levels of government *and* legions of disenchanted liberals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Hmm yes "pragmatism" has never steered us wrong before anime was right posted:pragmatism doesn't work when negotiating. when did I ever use the word pragmatism? channeling some optimism isn't a bad approach. we can go for voters who didn't vote for Clinton, but we also have to hang onto voters who did vote for Clinton. the way I worded it sounds like I'm saying we need corporate lobbyists, which I didn't really mean to say. we are going to need the people who are in the pantsuit nation FB group and wear safety pins, though. and optimism and talking about kindness and goodness works with them. MizPiz posted:I'm not even sure we have a big stick, let alone know it'll actually be used. tea party can teach you, the big stick stick is primaries and grass roots pressure. maybe the tea party was astro turfed and without billionaire backing we're hosed but we need to try.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
radical meme posted:How did she, and her message, get 2.5 million more votes than Trump? Please answer this question before ever posting again in this thread. I'll post wherever I goddamn feel like it, it's a FREE COUNTRY But dawg, do you just not know how this went down? Hillary actively courted the popular vote in big cities(look at the ad spending in California) while ignoring the states she needed to win. In one case, Michigan, she was ignoring the state as part of a strategy to convince Trump it wasn't viable. Her winning the popular vote is not only useless, it's a product of her campaign trying to create a blowout while ignoring all signs that she might not be able to win. It was a terribly run campaign.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:And promising modest nothing reforms while actively making GBS threads on anyone who wants more gets you totally shut out of all levels of government *and* legions of disenchanted liberals. i guess there's just no enchanting those liberals
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:I'll post wherever I goddamn feel like it, it's a FREE COUNTRY $0 quote:while ignoring the states she needed to win. In one case, Michigan, she was ignoring the state as part of a strategy to convince Trump it wasn't viable. Her winning the popular vote is not only useless, it's a product of her campaign trying to create a blowout while ignoring all signs that she might not be able to win. It was a terribly run campaign. while we can argue about whether or not more money needed to be put into michigan and wisconsin, she threw the kitchen sink at PA and lost, which still puts her below 270. ev so there's more to the story than that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:The Republicans are not going to come to the table negotiating in good faith for any of their proposals that has nothing to do with the concept of pragmatism not being inherently evil?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:For as terrible as this thread has been, at least no one has advocated "neutralizing" Bernie Sanders for the good of the country. Stay safe, socialism ghost.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:$0 yeeepppp. I live in central PA and the number of Clinton ads was huge. Of course, Trump also had ads all over TV, especially during football games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
comingafteryouall posted:As much as I would love for Pelosi to come out and eviscerate Clinton and the rest of the party and vow to end the Dem's relationship with all corporate lobbyists, we're going to need those Pantsuit Nation, safety pin wearing mother fuckers in the coalition. We literally have irrefutable evidence that not only do we not need them, they do more harm than good. I actually want Pelosi, but saying you need to win the Clintonistxs outside the party over is hilariously wrong. Their lovely PUMA party nonsense didn't stop Obama, and when they had the reins they made it clear they had no idea wtf they were doing and that there's far less of them than we thought. For every one pantsuit we lose in CA we can get a pair of overalls and a nurses scrubs in OH and WI.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
I'm sure the "deplorables" comment didn't help her in the Rust Belt. While true, it's not something you get to say during an election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I don't know what "liberal" even means anymore Throwing a tantrum when your candidate loses? IDK.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
democrats: "would you like to buy a car for 15,000 dollars? thats 5,000 dollars below asking price" republicans: "gently caress you, give us the car and give us 20,000 dollars too" democrats: "okay, 10,000 dollars then. that's half off." republicans: "no. give us the car and 20,000 dollars." democrats: "okay, how about... we give you the car for free?' republicans: "okay thanks. also gently caress you" lets start at 10,000 dollars this time. that'll loving work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
cool thought: Hillary Clinton spent more resources on Lena Dunham than winning Wisconsin
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
mugrim posted:We literally have irrefutable evidence that not only do we not need them, they do more harm than good. the number of hardcore clinton fans isn't exactly high, but this is arrogant and counter-productive thinking. you don't need to compromise your ideals to show a little respect, which goes a long way. i suspect that had hillary heeded that advice when picking her vp, she might be president today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
also car analogies yeah yeah
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
LinYutang posted:cool thought: Hillary Clinton spent more resources on Lena Dunham than winning Wisconsin hillary had like 200 staff in wisconsin so not really
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:02
|
|
|
loquacius posted:I don't know what "liberal" even means anymore https://twitter.com/UweBollocks/status/805787504175706112
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:that has nothing to do with the concept of pragmatism not being inherently evil? Not when you're dealing with the devil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:47 |
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Before the election I thought that antisemitism was mostly for old farts and wouldn't be making a comeback to compete with the new hotness of Islamophobia and so on. I guess I was wrong. i hear it a lot from
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:08
|
|
