|
JeffersonClay posted:Trump repeatedly praised Bernie on the campaign trail and talked about how unfairly he'd been treated by the DNC and Clinton. In concert with the hacked podesta emails, it was a naked attempt to ratfuck us and it worked like a charm. Ok, but that doesn't imply direct Russian involvement with Bernie. That's a strategy they could've come up with on their own.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 19:37 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:06 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:It takes willful ignorance to look at that quote and not see the implication. I see a rallying cry against NAFTA that I don't necessarily agree with, but what I don't see is a promise to bring back manufacturing. What I have seen all over his website and in a shitload of interviews is a promise to grow a green energy economy, invest in infrastructure, increase broadband access and make state college free so people can get jobs relevant to the current economy. I've just literally never seen him advocate for manufacturing, so I'm wondering if that actually happened or not.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 19:39 |
|
Kilroy posted:Okay let's talk about this instead of rehashing the primary because this is a legit interesting issue and one of the big differences - perhaps the biggest difference - between the GOP and the Democratic party. And it's something the Democratic party badly needs to address. Eh, Leiberman was different because he was a shithead in a blue state. Manchin and Heitkamp are Democrats in Red States who are not so easily replaced. That's a big difference. The other reason for this is the Democrat Party itself allows for and encourages a panoply of views and ideas, where as the Republicans don't. They encouraged rigid orthodoxy.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 19:39 |
|
Chelb posted:congrats on answering a truncated post and presuming that me saying white americans are racist means that they're permanently opposed to democratic messaging, and not that modern leftist movements have no reliable safeguards against ideologies built upon vocal hate i wonder why i would assume that? quote:
quote:We don't have a chance of reversing that because our party no longer has enough power and the vast majority of white America is racist Hmm.... it doesn't sound like you think white americans are amenable to democratic messaging... as for the rest of your post? why should I bother addressing it? it's an ill constructed hypothetical that you draw specious conclusions from. but if you insist... quote:Are they dispirited? Let's put ourselves into the shoes of a person who is not being held back from voting due to voter suppression - say, a white male with a decent job that offers enough downtime for him to easily vote. When he read on the news that Donald Trump was recorded bragging about sexually assaulting women, or that he mocked a disabled reporter, or that he insulted the parents of a dead veteran for no reason other than that they find him reprehensible, what do you think he thinks when he decides not to vote? That both sides are equally bad? That what he's heard all around him, very nearly shouted from the rooftops, on TV or the internet, are lies? even if we assume that most of white america doesn't care about the effects politics has on themselves or others, that doesn't mean they're irredeemable. it's our job to make them care, and it's possible to do just that. but you have to use honey instead of vinegar. you have to entice them to care. doing this is going to be important in the future since the GOP is going to supress votes way more than they were before.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 19:51 |
|
Condiv posted:if you don't believe people who abstain from voting are unethical why are you butting into an argument about whether or not they are unethical? Unethical people vote democratic too from time to time...
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 19:53 |
|
mcmagic posted:Unethical people vote democratic too from time to time... oh, so you want these unethical people to vote for dems? then why are you calling them unethical for not voting instead of trying to entice them to vote democrat?
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 19:57 |
|
calling people that are already weary of you names is not an effective method of getting them to vote for you "hey everyone that didn't do exactly what i wanted last election, you're a literal nazi, i hate you personally, and i blame you for our country's current political problems, you racist piece of poo poo. please vote for my candidate, tia"
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 19:58 |
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I see a rallying cry against NAFTA that I don't necessarily agree with, but what I don't see is a promise to bring back manufacturing. . Trade deals killed US manufacturing. We will end those trade deals so corporations will create jobs here. But oh no I don't mean manufacturing jobs that's ridiculous. Come on. Lightning Knight posted:Ok, but that doesn't imply direct Russian involvement with Bernie. That's a strategy they could've come up with on their own. Look at all the fawning pro-Bernie articles on RT, for example.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:01 |
|
RaySmuckles posted:calling people that are already weary of you names is not an effective method of getting them to vote for you Bad news. They're Nazis.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:02 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:Look at all the fawning pro-Bernie articles on RT, for example. Well, yes, it is true that the Russians wanted Bernie, or rather didn't want Hillary. But there isn't the same evidence of direct involvement/collusion like there is with Trump.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:03 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:Well, yes, it is true that the Russians wanted Bernie, or rather didn't want Hillary. But there isn't the same evidence of direct involvement/collusion like there is with Trump. Unlike Jill, who went to dinner with Vlad.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:05 |
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Eh, Leiberman was different because he was a shithead in a blue state. Manchin and Heitkamp are Democrats in Red States who are not so easily replaced. That's a big difference. Let people like Manchin run as independents if that's what they want to be. Even if they win, they won't be soaking up DSCC/DCCC resources doing so, and there are things the Democratic caucus in the House and Senate can do to get their support when they need it. JeffersonClay posted:Trump repeatedly praised Bernie on the campaign trail and talked about how unfairly he'd been treated by the DNC and Clinton. In concert with the hacked podesta emails, it was a naked attempt to ratfuck us and it worked like a charm.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:05 |
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Unlike Jill, who went to dinner with Vlad. And Flynn. I kind of agree that I'd rather have lockstep orthodoxy towards good policy than another ACA Lieberman fiasco. The Democrats need more forcefully vote whipping.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:07 |
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Bad news. They're Nazis. especially the ones that have never given a single thought about politics and didn't vote definitely nazis. this argument is so stupid. by your logic anyone who votes democrat supports Gitmo staying open, loves bank bailouts, supports expanded drone warfare, agrees with the expansion of the national security state and wireless wiretapping, wants to continue increasing deportations, and thinks all whistle blowers should be persecuted to the full extent of the law. those were the policies of obama. if you voted for obama you 100% agree with all of those policies. not to mention as an american you support the exploration of the 3rd world to support our extravagant lifestyles and externalizing pollution to poorer countries who make all our poo poo. its total bullshit to generalize massive swathes of populations.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:09 |
|
Kilroy posted:Well maybe we should borrow from the GOP playbook a bit on this. I'm not saying we need to have them in lockstep the way the GOP does, but as I said if you don't do something you're not really a political party anymore, you're just a guild of politicians who help each other get reelected. So we're not giving Bernie and Angus King money anymore?
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:09 |
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:So we're not giving Bernie and Angus King money anymore?
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:13 |
|
Condiv posted:it is dems fault. they had an easy election and they flubbed it hard with an unlikeable candidate who apparently can't figure out how to campaign. trump is an incompetent boob and his presidency so far has made that drat obvious, but the dems couldn't pull out a win against him even though he was their favored candidate. it's dems job to convince people to vote for them, and they absolutely refuse to do that and instead rely on party loyalty to win them election.the dems need to stop being just the lesser evil and actually appeal to someone other than wall street. In case you hadn't noticed, EVERY party tried and failed to stop Trump. The difference with the Republicans was that the FBI and Russia didn't help, and that he didn't win against Cruz by a lovely technicality, he won by a large margin. The Little Kielbasa posted:Hard to see that given the AFL-CIO's Ellison endorsement. That came before Perez entered the race. Condiv posted:voting is not a duty at all. that's why it's legal to not bother voting. the longer you keep pretending that people are obligated to vote for your party, instead of trying to convince them to vote for your party, the more support the dems will bleed. hth It's amazing how according to the numbers, zero Republicans agree with this sentiment. Almost like not thinking of a vote as something you have to purity test endlessly and instead just do, gives them what they want. What an amazing concept. Unless what you want is purity and no amount of political gains on earth will ever mean as much to you as that feeling of smug self satisfaction. Raskolnikov38 posted:*loses 900+ seats* *loses 900 seats* See, I shouldn't feel any obligation to vote at all. Crowsbeak posted:Yeah he should not have run on reforming it at all. Also bipartisan support doesn't mean it was good for America as 2008 showed. Clinton let the left down then expected fealty. Not going to happen. Best of all despite the support we showed her and him at the booth she lost. So now we can rightfully blame them. So you mean in the same way they were right to blame the failure of the left in the 80s?
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:14 |
|
RaySmuckles posted:calling people that are already weary of you names is not an effective method of getting them to vote for you Suggesting that certain actions are ethical or unethical isn't name calling.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:15 |
|
Kilroy posted:For what it's worth I don't like it at all that Bernie quit the Democratic party after his run yet is still invested in its politics e.g. promoting Keith Ellison to DNC chair - he should have done that as a member of the loving party and not as an outsider. So to answer your question (and in fact I was not aware that these two get DSCC money), no I don't think they should get funding. Yeah they both get DSCC money, and we cleared the field for both of them to run for Senate. The truth is that democratic party and liberalism writ large are more accepting of a wide number of view points.The problem isn't entirely people like Manchin or Heiditkamp, it's people in blue states who do dumb poo poo, and not running people who can win in states we should compete in. And also just not showing up in some of the red states.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:17 |
|
Fulchrum posted:In case you hadn't noticed, EVERY party tried and failed to stop Trump. The difference with the Republicans was that the FBI and Russia didn't help, and that he didn't win against Cruz by a lovely technicality, he won by a large margin. They were not right to blame us at all. Carter ran as a moderate and lost to Reagan. Mondale could only promise higher taxes. While Dukakis could only promise a balanced budget. Also now explain what your thoughts about properly regulating and cutting down the banks are. Also if you keep pushing poo poo candidates you will lose. Just like you did in the 80s but that's liberal centricism for you. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Feb 16, 2017 |
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:21 |
|
Condiv posted:oh, so you want these unethical people to vote for dems? then why are you calling them unethical for not voting instead of trying to entice them to vote democrat? Because what I say on a message board isn't going to be national democratic messaging. The national messaging that appeals to ethical people will also appeal to a number of unethical people.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:21 |
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Yeah they both get DSCC money, and we cleared the field for both of them to run for Senate. The truth is that democratic party and liberalism writ large are more accepting of a wide number of view points.The problem isn't entirely people like Manchin or Heiditkamp, it's people in blue states who do dumb poo poo, and not running people who can win in states we should compete in. And also just not showing up in some of the red states.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:23 |
|
Nevvy Z posted:Suggesting that certain actions are ethical or unethical isn't name calling. BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Bad news. They're Nazis. hmm, yes, do go on
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:23 |
|
Kilroy posted:Oh god drat it gently caress off with this poo poo. The only lesson you can possibly take from this is that going forward we can't even have a primary in the first place, because doing so will damage whatever precious snowflake candidate does wind up competing in the general. Of course the opposing party is going to try to gently caress with you - the Democrats did it to the Republicans as well and it probably got Trump nominated. Certainly Hillary's camp was delighted by the fact and we have documentation of that. Actually the lesson we should take from it is the next time we have the republicans and a foreign government colluding to ratfuck us we shouldn't fall for it. I don't care that Russia wanted Bernie to win, and I don't hold it against him or think it was his fault. I care that after Bernie had decisively lost his dumbest supporters guzzled down naked ratfucking like it was ambrosia.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:24 |
|
Fulchrum posted:*loses 900 seats*
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:28 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:Actually the lesson we should take from it is the next time we have the republicans and a foreign government colluding to ratfuck us we shouldn't fall for it. I don't care that Russia wanted Bernie to win, and I don't hold it against him or think it was his fault. I care that after Bernie had decisively lost his dumbest supporters guzzled down naked ratfucking like it was ambrosia.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:29 |
|
Crowsbeak posted:They were not right to blame us at all. Carter ran as a moderate and lost to Reagan. Mondale could only promise higher taxes. While Dukakis could only promis a balanced budget. Also now explain what your thoughts about properly regulating and cutting down the banks are. Also if you keep pushing poo poo candidates you will lose. Just like you did in the 80s but that's liberal centricism for you. Ah, I see, NEVER, EVER your fault and you can always say that you should take some blame. What a kooky coincidence, and not a complete delusion. Kilroy posted:You seem to be conflating a person who has voted Democratic and is angry that they keep losing, with someone who doesn't vote, or doesn't vote Democratic, and is nonetheless angry that they're losing. You seem unable to accept that people to the left of you want the Democrats to win elections and that moving to the left is part of the strategy to do that. Instead, for you it is a given that moving to the left will lose elections, so the only reason anyone could support it is out of a desire for ideological purity over and above results. In fact it is precisely that "ideological purity" (as you would call it) that we believe is a means to win more elections. And that is why the candidate with the most progressive platform in us history won. Oh wait. Little monkey wrench in your theory.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:35 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:I care that after Bernie had decisively lost his dumbest supporters guzzled down naked ratfucking like it was ambrosia. Bernie's dumbest supporters are annoying, but I don't get how they're statistically significant enough to generate as much outrage as you seem to harbor. The vast, vast, vast majority of Bernie supporters voted for Hillary.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:35 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Ah, I see, NEVER, EVER your fault and you can always say that you should take some blame. What a kooky coincidence, and not a complete delusion. This was not the most progressive platform in US history... At least not economically.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:36 |
|
Fulchrum posted:Ah, I see, NEVER, EVER your fault and you can always say that you should take some blame. What a kooky coincidence, and not a complete delusion. But it wasn't our fault. You guus ratfucked Jackson. Both times. I guess maybe Ted should not have run against a sitting president but to suggest Carter, Mondale or Dukakis were lefties is delusional. Also that was certainly not the most progressive platform in us history. FDRs and LBJ had far more progressive platforms.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:37 |
|
Kilroy posted:And yet they voted for Hillary in the general in greater proportion than did Hillary supporters for Obama in 2008. You have no idea if that's true or not, and it doesn't matter in any case. The PUMA bullshit was GOP ratfucking too.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:41 |
|
mcmagic posted:This was not the most progressive platform in US history... At least not economically. It was the most progressive platform since Reagan got elected, which is the earliest you can reasonably compare to the present. The problem was actually that people didn't believe Hillary would implement that, rightly or wrongly. Which is a problem fixed by getting somebody whose political history is more in line with the platform. I.e. Keith Ellison.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:41 |
|
Fulchrum posted:And that is why the candidate with the most progressive platform in us history won.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:43 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:You have no idea if that's true or not, and it doesn't matter in any case. The PUMA bullshit was GOP ratfucking too.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:45 |
|
Lightning Knight posted:It was the most progressive platform since Reagan got elected, which is the earliest you can reasonably compare to the present. I don't think the reason she lost had anything to do with her platform or if people thought she was going to implement it or not. This was about her personally.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:45 |
|
mcmagic posted:I don't think the reason she lost had anything to do with her platform or if people thought she was going to implement it or not. This was about her personally. Well, probably that too, yeah. Either way those are mostly problems unique to Hillary Clinton.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:46 |
|
mcmagic posted:Because what I say on a message board isn't going to be national democratic messaging. The national messaging that appeals to ethical people will also appeal to a number of unethical people. It didn't last time, why would it this time?
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:48 |
|
Kilroy posted:The numbers bear it out and if it doesn't matter then why are you complaining about "dumb" Bernie supporters? They don't, because we don't actually have the vote totals by party ID data yet. It doesn't matter because falling for ratfucking is still bad in 2016 even if some people fell for it in 2008.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:51 |
|
Support for free trade rise to new highs!
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:54 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:06 |
|
JeffersonClay posted:They don't, because we don't actually have the vote totals by party ID data yet. It doesn't matter because falling for ratfucking is still bad in 2016 even if some people fell for it in 2008.
|
# ? Feb 16, 2017 20:54 |