|
CommieGIR posted:The Donald just suggested Shutting Down the Internet in places to fight terrorism He suggested this on the campaign trail as well. Good to know he is sticking to his promises!
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 02:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:35 |
|
|
Hobologist posted:Again, the polls said it was working. I saw articles actually praising this as a strategy, following Napoleon's maxim that "when the enemy is making a mistake, don't interrupt him," and worrying Hillary talking about herself would leave herself open to attacks of some kind. given that she seemed to be making 'start World War 3' one of her few party planks that wasn't transparently vague and empty, yeah I kinda did like, I wound up voting for her anyway, but I've voted pretty much party-line D in the past, and I felt pretty bad about it even at the time; I don't think I'll be voting for Democrats again anytime soon given this is how much contempt they show for people like me A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/BrendanNyhan/status/805592658718638082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw this seems like it was a bad decision
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:There's evidence that decades of right-wing bullshit has poisoned the well on certain words and phrases, but when you actually talk to the people, they support progressive, even socialist ideas. There is evidence of this as well. If rightwing bullshit has poisoned how the electorate views socialism I think it's pretty important for the people asserting more socialism would have won the election to grapple with that graph. Rent-A-Cop posted:Are we shocked that 46% of people didn't want more liberal policies? 46% of voters voted for Donald Trump. I think what that graph shows is that Democrats were split 60/40 on whether the party needed to be more progressive. Yes but more democrats actually prefer more Obamaish policies. Is there any evidence that a more leftist candidate or candidacy would have brought out more leftists than it lost in moderate democrats?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 07:15
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If rightwing bullshit has poisoned how the electorate views socialism I think it's pretty important for the people asserting more socialism would have won the election to grapple with that graph. or else they'd be committing the same error that Hillary's defenders made in saying that just because voters were primed to dislike Hillary/socialism didn't mean they wouldn't vote for her/it
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 07:28
|
|
|
Claims that Trump winning was an anomaly rings false with Brexit and the Italian referendum - people are lashing out against third wayism. But neoliberals gotta neolib.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 07:31
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes but more democrats actually prefer more Obamaish policies. Is there any evidence that a more leftist candidate or candidacy would have brought out more leftists than it lost in moderate democrats? The point is more than certain words are just poisonous in American political discourse. I know lifelong Democrats who recoil when you call them "liberals," even though that's absolutely, 100% what they are. If you actually want to know what people want, you pretty much have to poll them on policies that avoid terms that the right has spent the last several decades dragging through the mud. I also suspect a lot of those people who want "more conservative" policies really just want "not Obama."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:Claims that Trump winning was an anomaly rings false with Brexit and the Italian referendum - people are lashing out against third wayism. But neoliberals gotta neolib. This is a resurgence of white nationalism, not a rejection of any particular policies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:This is a resurgence of white nationalism, not a rejection of any particular policies. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
Odd how there's a "resurgence" of nativism across the world at the same time....
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 09:45
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:https://twitter.com/BrendanNyhan/status/805592658718638082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 09:47
|
|
|
There's more to it, go watch one of Hillary's rally speeches such as Cleveland Ohio in late October. In that specific speech she spends almost 1/3 of her speech roasting Trump's business and personal life rather then his rhetoric or his absurd policy suggestions. That comparison has a point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
MiddleOne posted:There's more to it, go watch one of Hillary's rally speeches such as Cleveland Ohio in late October. In that specific speech she spends almost 1/3 of her speech roasting Trump's business and personal life rather then his rhetoric or his absurd policy suggestions. That comparison has a point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 10:54
|
|
|
Well yeah Trump saying he'll round up illegals because they're rapists is a "positive" in that it's something he claimed he would do. Hillary saying that's hosed up is "negative" because she's attacking her opponent/opponent's strategy. They're not synonyms for good and bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:I'm not going to be gaslighted Go look it up! The rallies are on youtube, you don't have to trust me. Watch hers and then follow it up with his, Cleveland Ohio, they had their respective rallies back to back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Searching for data regarding Obama's approval, I found this exit polling: Sure, if we discount the fact that the guy running on a populist economic platform managed to win the goddamn election by squaeking out wins in the states where economic populism enjoys the greatest amount of support. And also if we discount that the polls showed Bernie completely burying Trump while Hillary had a few points on him. Or all the other objective evidence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Well yeah Trump saying he'll round up illegals because they're rapists is a "positive" in that it's something he claimed he would do. Hillary saying that's hosed up is "negative" because she's attacking her opponent/opponent's strategy. They're not synonyms for good and bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 11:15
|
|
|
Higsian posted:Well yeah Trump saying he'll round up illegals because they're rapists is a "positive" in that it's something he claimed he would do. Hillary saying that's hosed up is "negative" because she's attacking her opponent/opponent's strategy. They're not synonyms for good and bad. If you're on the TV for free for at least 4 hours a day because of the inane poo poo you say that gets reported on (seriously, the amount of free coverage Trump received was huge and had it been bought would have cost billions) that frees your actual campaign ads up for doing more upbeat policy notes. Clinton by contrast had a hard time getting the same amount of coverage; mainly since she didn't do as many rallies but also because she didn't say the absurd poo poo Trump did at every turn that caused all the free coverage. If Clinton wanted more coverage she'd basically have to go LaRouche. Party Plane Jones fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Searching for data regarding Obama's approval, I found this exit polling: People didn't vote for Trump for his beltway conservativism The Midwest and the Rust Belt asking him and the federal government for a handout since they can't break the funk in manufacturing themselves This will be abundantly shown within 4 years e: This Rolling Stone article is still very relevant. Dead Cosmonaut fucked around with this message at 12:53 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 12:20
|
|
|
The bent of the message does not matter as much as the presentation. Showing up as political robot model 2.0 versus someone telling other politicians to gently caress off is a pretty stark comparison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 12:54
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Sure, if we discount the fact that the guy running on a populist economic platform managed to win the goddamn election by squaeking out wins in the states where economic populism enjoys the greatest amount of support. And also if we discount that the polls showed Bernie completely burying Trump while Hillary had a few points on him. Or all the other objective evidence. There's no inherent contradiction in a populist, conservative economic message. As we are all aware, there were significant discrepancies between the pre-election polling and the electorate that showed up at the polls. And even if the polls showing Bernie would have outperformed Hillary against trump are accurate, can we necessarily conclude that represents a groundswell of support for socialism? It could be that he was simply more likeable-- which is how people are explaining Hillary's underperforming Obama despite her similar (and maybe a bit more liberal) policy positions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:If you're on the TV for free for at least 4 hours a day because of the inane poo poo you say that gets reported on (seriously, the amount of free coverage Trump received was huge and had it been bought would have cost billions) that frees your actual campaign ads up for doing more upbeat policy notes. Clinton by contrast had a hard time getting the same amount of coverage; mainly since she didn't do as many rallies but also because she didn't say the absurd poo poo Trump did at every turn that caused all the free coverage. Don't forget that the Trump campaign spent far, far less on TV ads. His national and local TV ads were less negative because he had way fewer of them, so they had to be more universal. You compare that to his rallies, which were full of negative campaigning ("lock her up", etc), it looks like he was Mr. loving Rogers in comparison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
DC Murderverse posted:Don't forget that the Trump campaign spent far, far less on TV ads. His national and local TV ads were less negative because he had way fewer of them, so they had to be more universal. You compare that to his rallies, which were full of negative campaigning ("lock her up", etc), it looks like he was Mr. loving Rogers in comparison. The problem is, for every sound byte harvested with him saying she should be locked up or him out-grouping some out-group, there's like 5-10 minutes of him pushing how he hears the problems of the people in the hinterlands and how he's going to make it all better. All of that was seemingly ignored. All of it. Can he deliver? It doesn't matter. He said it and she had nothing high profile enough to counter it. It's almost like she didn't try to counter it. And that was a huge blind spot in the Clinton campaign and here we are. I'm a D line voter. I've been a registered Democrat for exactly 20 years and even I...Mr. rock solid reliable D voter...found myself thinking about how I was voting against Donald Trump rather than for Hillary Clinton in my internal monologue.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:The problem is, for every sound byte harvested with him saying she should be locked up or him out-grouping some out-group, there's like 5-10 minutes of him pushing how he hears the problems of the people in the hinterlands and how he's going to make it all better. All of that was seemingly ignored. All of it. I swear it's so clear who have and haven't actually checked out one of his speeches from before the election. If I'd split it up he talks 5% Great American nostalgia, 50% economy (trade deals, jobs, tariffs, factories, tax cuts), 30% Establishment Corruption (here is where your Hillary soundbites are from) and 10% 'immigrants are the cause of all crime and terrorism, lets build a wall people'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
Not having a job was illegal but everyone was also entitled to one. The data shows that rust belters have extremely low levels of entrepreneurship and low cultural tolerance for risk taking and initiative. Towns like St. Louis stagnate because once the factories left 45% of the population was left with nothing to do
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:I'm not going to be gaslighted into believing that Trump ran a campaign based on issues and policy. Trump won based on hatred and vitriol (not to mention voter suppression and an electoral system that favors rural low-population states). The only way that you get Hillary running a more negative campaign is if you put things like Trump's claim that we should stop Mexicans from coming to the U.S. because they're rapists into the "policy" column, and Hillary's response that such a claim is xenophobic and racist into the "personal negative attack" column. That's 100% correct, though? That's what those words mean. Trump using sexist rhetoric against Hillary is a negative attack; stating he will implement sexist policies if elected is... a statement of policy. To clarify further: "If elected, I shall invade the moon to get back our precious cheese from the pernicious moon-men." <- a statement of policy "My opponent is a ridiculous lunatic for raving about non-existent moon-men." <- a negative personal attack PoontifexMacksimus fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Dec 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Not having a job was illegal but everyone was also entitled to one. With no social safety net and no local economy it's kinda hard for entrepreneurship to happen. They call it a death spiral for a reason. It's not culture, it's economics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
A lot of these people spent a lifetime voting for free trade and voting against unions so I can't say I have much sympathy for them. I can't wait for Boomers to die off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:A lot of these people spent a lifetime voting for free trade and voting against unions so I can't say I have much sympathy for them. I can't wait for Boomers to die off. Boomers aren't our only problem. I've argued with a disturbing amount of people in their 20's, 30's and 40's that have bought into these concepts completely and utterly. It's foolish to think that the baby boomer generation is going to be the end of this nonsense. As much as it's pseudoscience-y, that 80 year 4 turning generational theory is sort of bearing out right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:55
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:With no social safety net and no local economy it's kinda hard for entrepreneurship to happen. They call it a death spiral for a reason. It's not culture, it's economics. US entrepreneurship is actually unusually low anyway, so this isn't unique to the Rust Belt. People aren't going out and starting new businesses in general. It's not a good thing. (note that I strongly disagree with that article's assertion that this is due somehow to a too strict regulatory environment)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
Lack of entrepreneurship is probably a consequence of the US's idiotic system of tying health insurance to employment, if I had to take a guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:Boomers aren't our only problem. I've argued with a disturbing amount of people in their 20's, 30's and 40's that have bought into these concepts completely and utterly. It's foolish to think that the baby boomer generation is going to be the end of this nonsense. As much as it's pseudoscience-y, that 80 year 4 turning generational theory is sort of bearing out right now. I don't buy it. The working class whites wanted a handout and it just so happened that Trump entered office promising the world to these people. And millennials will always remember Bush.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
TyroneGoldstein posted:Boomers aren't our only problem. I've argued with a disturbing amount of people in their 20's, 30's and 40's that have bought into these concepts completely and utterly. It's foolish to think that the baby boomer generation is going to be the end of this nonsense. As much as it's pseudoscience-y, that 80 year 4 turning generational theory is sort of bearing out right now. Yeah, don't forget that the entire "alt-right" internet community is composed of like especially lovely 20-30 year olds who bought into the idea that they can't have a girlfriend or the respect of their peers because the women and SJWs poisoned everybody's minds against them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:US entrepreneurship is actually unusually low anyway, so this isn't unique to the Rust Belt. People aren't going out and starting new businesses in general. It's not a good thing. Right. Imho it's because we have no social safety net.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
deadly_pudding posted:Yeah, don't forget that the entire "alt-right" internet community is composed of like especially lovely 20-30 year olds who bought into the idea that they can't have a girlfriend or the respect of their peers because the women and SJWs poisoned everybody's minds against them. The alt-right is going to turn on Trump once they find out he's not a national socialist who isn't out to kill illegals, refugee, Muslims, and Jews
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Lack of entrepreneurship is probably a consequence of the US's idiotic system of tying health insurance to employment, if I had to take a guess. Yes. And just as the ACA provides a way for the self-employed to get low-cost health care. BAM. Trump happens. Entrepreneurs better have hardy health. No asthmatics or diabetics needed as future captains of industry, no sir. Let alone people with families.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:The alt-right is going to turn on Trump once they find out he's not a national socialist who isn't out to kill illegals, refugee, Muslims, and Jews A small number of them maybe, but for most of them I really doubt it. They'll probably settle with the idea that he was better than the alternative, much like most Dem voters accepted Obama even after "Yes We Can" turned into "...But We Won't."
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:A small number of them maybe, but for most of them I really doubt it. They'll probably settle with the idea that he was better than the alternative, much like most Dem voters accepted Obama even after "Yes We Can" turned into "...But We Won't." I love how much the GOP managed to get the left to turn on Obama after 8 years of obstruction. And people wonder why we don't have many good leftist politicians.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Khisanth Magus posted:I love how much the GOP managed to get the left to turn on Obama after 8 years of obstruction. And people wonder why we don't have many good leftist politicians. Yup the GOP sure did make Obama offer them the Grand Bargin, or to force him to constantly criticize the left for asking him to take some action on their behalf and him and Rahm Emmanuel telling them to gently caress off. Or in the 2012 debates Obama talking about how he agreed with what a lot Romney said. At some loving point, liberals and the Democrats have to realize you actually have to appeal to voters to keep them coming out for you and not just keep running as the not racist conservative party to get their base to turn out
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 17:35 |
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Yes. And just as the ACA provides a way for the self-employed to get low-cost health care. BAM. Trump happens. Entrepreneurs better have hardy health. No asthmatics or diabetics needed as future captains of industry, no sir. Let alone people with families. The ACA in no way provides low-cost health care, unless you define low-cost as having $300-400/per person/per month premiums for a plan with $10k+ OOP maxes "low-cost". Khisanth Magus posted:I love how much the GOP managed to get the left to turn on Obama after 8 years of obstruction. And people wonder why we don't have many good leftist politicians. I'm not sure it was that leftist of him to offer the GOP a Grand Bargain on a platter. We were literally a gnat's asshair away from the gutting of Social Security under this so-called leftist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:31
|
|