|
BarbarianElephant posted:Those finely discerning voters figured out that Clinton did not love them as much as her own daughter, but missed that Trump was a complete freaking sociopath that would say anything to get elected then gut their rights? Riiiiiiiiiight. Consider that for a steel or a coal worker, Clinton saying "your job isn't viable anymore, sorry" and "the economy is just fine and I'm gonna be more of the same" makes it a choice between your livelihood getting destroyed or the chaos option. Most sat at home but some voted for chaos. This isn't a hard concept to understand
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Consider that for a steel or a coal worker, Clinton saying "your job isn't viable anymore, sorry" and "the economy is just fine and I'm gonna be more of the same" makes it a choice between your livelihood getting destroyed or the chaos option. Most sat at home but some voted for chaos. This isn't a hard concept to understand This was Ken Bone's exact reasoning if you recall. He felt Trump was better for him personally (and he worked at a fossil fuel plant, so he was right) whereas Clinton was better for everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This was Ken Bone's exact reasoning if you recall. He felt Trump was better for him personally (and he worked at a fossil fuel plant, so he was right) whereas Clinton was better for everyone else. Actually ken bone was pretty peak 2016 as I look back on him. He was a man that had valid concerns that was immediately turned into a spectacle to be gawked at by woke hipsters and yuppies until they found a reason to jettison him and forget he ever existed
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:11
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Consider that for a steel or a coal worker, Clinton saying "your job isn't viable anymore, sorry" and "the economy is just fine and I'm gonna be more of the same" makes it a choice between your livelihood getting destroyed or the chaos option. Most sat at home but some voted for chaos. This isn't a hard concept to understand Business Gorillas posted:I'm personally loving the whole "the American electorate can't handle the truth and need to be lied to" shtick a lot of you are doing... So, what should Clinton or any Democratic candidate have told them then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:So, what should Clinton or any Democratic candidate have told them then? Were bringing the jobs back day 1 of my presidency. My first executive order is no more trade. gently caress globalization ur the heartbeat of america and without you america is nothing
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
I'm sure you guys will do all-right, you're *special*
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:She was nominated because she was the most qualified intelligent candidate that knows how to get things done. She knows how washington works and can compromise. Well this is a pretty decent defense of Hillary as the Democrat choice. My reservations with the pick had nothing to do with her qualifications, or "scandals" or whatever else. More so the growing dissatisfaction of working Americans of the dysfunction within "the establishment" and the frustration over the economic system they are in (its clear to me voting for Trump is a sign of a very desperate America trying to find an out) during Obama's presidency. The economic recovery was too slow and needed 3x the stimulus Obama got and he also never did enough to quell opposing forces. Because of that I suspected there was going to be a serious backlash this election cycle. The Democrats should have known it was coming but they got their safe establishment pick in Clinton, basically another 4 more years of Obama. The Tea Party and the Right have poisoned the political discourse so much and have framed the issues their way, that no amount of facts, statistics was ever going to persuade Americans their lives were slowly improving. Obama was never going to be the strong leader to deal with the failures of advanced capitalism, that much is true, but that is exactly what we need. It's just a shame Americans got so thoroughly duped by Trump's false populism, but we deserve what's coming I guess...
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Nosfereefer posted:I'm sure you guys will do all-right, you're *special* Ill do all right but the environment for my kids may not. I dont care that much about minorities. They should have voted in their best interest in greater numbers. As should have woman. If trump does wrong by them their more than welcome to come out in force in future elections But the kids couldnt do jack poo poo about all us adults being retarded and electing a climate deniar logosanatic fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Dec 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 01:34
|
|
|
When the goldman sachs transcripts got leaked it pretty much told us hillary is a massive shill for those fuckers. There wasn't anything illegal there, but it does pretty much tell you all you need to know about her commitment to "the most left-wing platform in democratic history".
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
hillary in a nutshell https://twitter.com/BecketAdams/status/806253662267904000?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:hillary in a nutshell Yeah... why do we still have people defending Hillary? Her hubris resulted in an almost fully Republican controlled government at a very pivotal time, and not just any Republicans but Trump and Pence. Every time I see her in those dumbass woods pictures or whatever just smiling like nothing is wrong I get aggravated. She's not going to suffer under Trump, but I certainly will, and she totally half assed her campaign. So unbelievably out of touch. It's infuriating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 02:33
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:When the goldman sachs transcripts got leaked it pretty much told us hillary is a massive shill for those fuckers. There wasn't anything illegal there, but it does pretty much tell you all you need to know about her commitment to "the most left-wing platform in democratic history". Lol no. Care to quote the part of her speech that's inconsistent with the platform?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:05
|
|
|
One thing that I think contributed to hillarys downfall was the fact that Trump sorta became a heroic character, and Hillary became the face of a monolithic machine. Think about it, a rich guy who appears on wrestling shows and is a complete newcomer to politics runs in the primary. He has a sense of style more like a rapper than other society elites, and is dismissed as a joke by the left and right. Then he starts winning the primary, and all the republican politicians start panicking, and trying to stop him, and fail. Hillary meanwhile has 'It's her turn' as a slogan, and it is expected that she is the heir to the Obama administration. Her primary against bernie is marred by the revelation that the DNC running the primaries was biased against bernie, and sketchy things happened in the primaries of several states. Hillary's email scandal happened at the same time, and she tries to take up bernies message, but no one believes a word of it. Hillary had her clinton foundation, which places like Saudi Arabia donated vast sums of money towards. Her speeches at Goldman Sachs were found, and she had all sorts of donations and endorsements by huge celebrities and corporations. The media had all sorts of articles saying she had already won, and Trump was a racist footnote. Trump meanwhile paid for some of the campaign out of pocket, and through some fundrasing. Trump was always on the backfoot, but he looked like the scrappy underdog with a team of republican has-beens against a corporate machine funded by the rich and powerful of america.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
shrike82 posted:hillary in a nutshell Guess we better run our own billionaire next time that doesnt need big donors
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Or someone who can attract enough small donors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Yup HRC lost because she was the populist running against the billionaire
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:12
|
|
|
I was one of those dummies who trusted the polls and thought she had it in the bag, but my inner Arzy was freaking out as soon as she debuted "America Is Already Great" because holy poo poo if there was ever a more tone-deaf self-defeating arrogant slogan. Like imagine if the response to "BLACK LIVES MATTER" was "BLACK LIVES ALREADY MATTER".
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Lol no. Care to quote the part of her speech that's inconsistent with the platform? She made a big deal about how she had sternly told the finance sector to "cut it out" and that she would make sure they don't gamble expecting a bail out again, however in the speech she said she thinks the best approach is to let people from finance police the industry because they know what is best. I mean, what point are you even trying to make defending her like this? She didn't campaign in Wisconsin and was going after loving Arizona. Her campaign is kinda irreconcilable. Her hubris and arrogance enabled a white power fascist to become president...
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
Z. Autobahn posted:I was one of those dummies who trusted the polls and thought she had it in the bag, but my inner Arzy was freaking out as soon as she debuted "America Is Already Great" because holy poo poo if there was ever a more tone-deaf self-defeating arrogant slogan. Hillary also said All Lives Matter at a black church after the Dylan Roof shooting. She is beyond tone-deaf.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
I'm less interested in defending her than correctly identifying the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Mixodorian posted:She made a big deal about how she had sternly told the finance sector to "cut it out" and that she would make sure they don't gamble expecting a bail out again, however in the speech she said she thinks the best approach is to let people from finance police the industry because they know what is best. Fortunately, we have Goldman Sachs veteran Steve Mnuchin at the Treasury and a President who wants to roll back Dodd-Frank, so we don't have to worry about it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
In all this I'm still trying to figure out the voter's responsibility in this democracy. You can blame the DNC or HRC or whatever but at the end of the day we all hosed up. We made a choice and that was to burn it down leftist are to weak and vulnerable to infighting as seen here. Like say what you want but it only gets worse from here on out. We always make excuses for the voters but this is what they want a shirty life and you get what you vote for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm less interested in defending her than correctly identifying the problem. We already have identified the problem over the past 46 pages.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm less interested in defending her than correctly identifying the problem. As inconsequential a reason it may be in terms of how she would've actually governed, I think the fact that she has been one of the most important people in the world for 30 years and the lifestyle that comes alongside of that was her main issue, compounded by her lack of charisma. Obama was a fresh face and he did well, same with Bill Clinton back in 92. It kind of seems the longer you are a prominent public figure, the harder it is to get people to get excited for anything you do. On top of that, while there is some extent of her campaigning being run in accordance to incorrect polling which was not her fault, her choice to campaign in red states trying to run up the score as well as the constant fundraising in New York instead of speaking to as many people in her base as possible was a jarring mistake. Especially when considering the conventional wisdom that in modern US politics you win by exciting "your" people, not converting the other sides voting bloc to defect, this is something I can't forgive her and her staff for. I mean, Bill himself was trying to convince her team to go talk to more rural people and they didn't... On top of that, remember how Obama would go to random low population rural towns just to get out there and shake hands in 08? While Trump is obviously out of touch as well, he also understands what plays well on TV which he worked tremendously to his advantage. I think the democrats success will be dependent on finding a candidate that is 1.) a new face on the national stage 2.) brimming with energy and willing to take on the difficult task of constant visits to as many places as possible while campaigning/younger and 3.) no baggage in the form of being related to unpopular policy decisions from the past. no huge sums of money received from banks and drug companies that suck the blood out of this country I also think that a democrat shouldn't be afraid to say wholeheartedly that while it will be tough and might not happen, that they will at least FIGHT to work towards single-payer, free public uni, all that sort of thing. Saying "it's never going to happen" like Hillary did was a terrible move, it just fed into people's cynicism which led to them staying home. Right now, I'm thinking Kamala Harris would be one of the best picks in 2020, but that is a far ways away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Fortunately, we have Goldman Sachs veteran Steve Mnuchin at the Treasury and a President who wants to roll back Dodd-Frank, so we don't have to worry about it anymore. Also, this poo poo helps no one. Listen, Trump is a white supremacist and I am black as the night sky. He is obviously infinitely worse than Hillary, please don't waste anyone's time or patience with this kind of trite rear end deflection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Lol no. Care to quote the part of her speech that's inconsistent with the platform? The part where she said you needed to have "public" and "private" positions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
Mixodorian posted:Also, this poo poo helps no one. Listen, Trump is a white supremacist and I am black as the night sky. He is obviously infinitely worse than Hillary, please don't waste anyone's time or patience with this kind of trite rear end deflection. I don't see why the tendency of Americans to vote against their economic interests or even what they perceive to be their economic interests should be off the table in doing a post-mortem on the election, or why it makes sense that people decided to punish the moneyed elite by electing a billionaire and his billionaire friends. Elections are about comparing alternatives; it wasn't "Hillary Clinton or there won't be a president for four years;" it was "Hillary or Trump." Especially since there's a three-way tie in this thread between whether the Democrats' platform was inadequately liberal, whether the policy was fine and Hillary was just unable to sell them, or now apparently that Hillary would have been able to sell them; she just made a strategic error while doing so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Mixodorian posted:Especially when considering the conventional wisdom that in modern US politics you win by exciting "your" people, not converting the other sides voting bloc to defect, this is something I can't forgive her and her staff for. I mean, Bill himself was trying to convince her team to go talk to more rural people and they didn't... damned if she do, damned if she don't, huh?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:00
|
|
|
logosanatic posted:Minimum wage wont get people into the quarternary sector. U needs lots of money to go back to school as an adult. In a post-Pentagonized society we are colonizing ourselves to produce a generative underclass. What you are saying is true but it's not arguing against what I'm saying. We're through the loop on the Möbius strip. The primary sector supported the secondary sector which supported the tertiary sector. We outsourced the primary sector so the secondary structure could thrive and the tertiary sector could grow all the more. During this time, the quaternary sector languished because it was primarily part of Academia and the academe is a holdover from Feudalism with non-capitalist goals. Then we outsourced the secondary sector. Around this time, certain aspects of the quaternary sector for it absurdly profitable to generate infinite sums of capital. That bubble crashed so we went back to the tertiary sector while doubling down on Pentagonization to keep the sweet cash flowing. Didn't work out so well since the Pentagonized conflicts were less profitable than expected and the tertiary sector got called on its bluff. So we have an ascendant quaternary sector living large off the weakened elements of the tertiary sector while the rich leech-like component of the now diversified tertiary sector remains as powerful as ever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:In a post-Pentagonized society we are colonizing ourselves to produce a generative underclass. What you are saying is true but it's not arguing against what I'm saying. what the hell did i just read
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:what the hell did i just read Someone actually trying to talk about the issues. It's rare on SA, so I understand your confusion. thanks for quoting
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Someone actually trying to talk about the issues. Funny, it looked like you just vomited a bunch of jargon. I have no idea what "the primary sector supported the secondary sector which supported the tertiary sector" means.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:36
|
|
|
Markov chain generator from Hillary's speeches
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:Funny, it looked like you just vomited a bunch of jargon. I have no idea what "the primary sector supported the secondary sector which supported the tertiary sector" means. Sorry you don't understand basic economics? Raw materials = Primary sector. Mining, growing, etc. Products = Secondary sector. Anything you work from the primary sector. Metals get turned into tools, cars, etc. Crops get turned into processed foods, etc. Service = Tertiary sector. The original three sectors model of the economy lumped everything else into the tertiary sector. Sales, financial markets, everything not related to either directly extracting resources or directly making something from those resources. Hillbilly Joe mines iron (primary) which City Sven fashions into cars, which are in turn sold by Slick Steven (tertiary) to Hillbilly Joe and City Sven. Because of the decline of the primary and secondary sector and the general undifferentiated "other" that was the tertiary, the tertiary has been further subdivided where "tertiary" is service like restaurants, sales and finance while quaternary is intellectual services like R&D, "tech", etc. You can (and people have and continue to do so) argue that these categories are indistinct, jumbled and/or naive. I'd argue they are overly simplistic but they are the language we have to talk about the issues. Using them as a baseline we can branch out but without a common language for easy discussion (which I guess is now "jargon") we'd have to endlessly redefine terms which is a huge loving waste of time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Sorry you don't understand basic economics? I have a degree in Economics. In every context I've read, sectors are referred to using their actual names, e.g. manufacturing sector, service sector, healthcare sector, etc. I've never heard them called primary, secondary, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:We already have identified the problem over the past 46 pages. I haven't seen any reason to support #3. Hillary's economic message tests really well. http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/1055/Dcor_PE_RTR_Ealert_11.15.2016_for%20release.pdf Check pages 8-10
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:21
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I haven't seen any reason to support #3. Hillary's economic message tests really well. http://www.democracycorps.com/attachments/article/1055/Dcor_PE_RTR_Ealert_11.15.2016_for%20release.pdf Yes, I'm aware that she promised things like "tax the rich" and "raise corporate tax rates" and "financial reform". The problem is that these things meant gently caress-all coming from someone who lobbied to repeal Glass-Steagall back in the day, then later made millions giving speeches to Wall Street and had a huge number of wealthy donors. That said, I should have phrased my original point differently. I meant to say, "She had a lot of bold ideas, most of which she either had no intention of actually carrying out, or would be blocked by Congress if she tried."
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:31
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:I have a degree in Economics. In every context I've read, sectors are referred to using their actual names, e.g. manufacturing sector, service sector, healthcare sector, etc. I've never heard them called primary, secondary, etc. I'm sorry the American education system let you down. You can argue against it, but it's a very common framework for discussion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:In a post-Pentagonized society we are colonizing ourselves to produce a generative underclass. What you are saying is true but it's not arguing against what I'm saying. Is this Time Cube?
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 03:35 |
|
|
What isn't clear? I can explain whatever isn't making sense to you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2016 07:06
|
|