|
JeffersonClay posted:losing an election means you are wrong about everything. Winning an election means you are right about everything. Republicans won the last election, and therefore... wait. No. Bernie lost the primary therefore... shoot, give me a minute here. YES the Republicans have some things figured out that the Democrats do not, regarding how to win elections. The Democrats can learn from them. Pander to your base. If they want something, tell them you'll deliver it, even if the path to get there isn't entirely clear yet and will take an indeterminate amount of time. When people tell you something is wrong, listen - don't wave your hands and tell them everything's fine. When people on the ground are telling you a critical swing state might go red, loving step foot in Wisconsin. And so on. The GOP is evil, organized, and focused. Democrats like you seem to think that means we should be virtuous, disorganized, and listless.
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:And what exactly did Obama do with the remaining 93 months?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Is political capital accumulated at the end of the month like prestige in CK2?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Obama, 3 months in, blaming Wall Street greed and incompetence for the crisis. quote:This recession was not caused by a normal downturn in the business cycle. It was caused by a perfect storm of irresponsibility and poor decision-making that stretched from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street. "This recession was not inevitable, it happened because people all across America are irresponsible and made poor decisions." He literally blames all of America for the recession. And the fact that you have to quote three paragraphs to prove that Obama has rhetorically attacked the banks is telling on like a bunch of levels. E: Raskolnikov38 posted:words are cheap The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 02:38 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:You're so close. You're right there. You almost figured it out but your hubris has apparently put your head back up your rear end for you. drat shame. They won't even lie to us because the people the DNC gets their money from want different things than the people they get their votes from. Its insanely important to realize that the DNC base is not the DNC constituency- thats the only way their politics make sense. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Let me guess, that's not good enough? I don't really have anything to say that hasn't already been said about this, except that I need to quote it and point out how loving amazing it is. No, forums poster JeffersonClay, it is not good enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:hahahahaha are you honestly kidding me? Three paragraphs of pathetic wonk talk, and the hardest line is this: You claimed Obama never rhetorically attacked banks. You are obviously, probably wrong. Now you're shifting the goalposts in another lame attempt to obsfuscate, but it's just more ignorance. Obama didn't blame the entire crisis on Wall Street greed because that wasn't the only problem. The other problems were bad government regulations (Washington) and individual greed, in the form of speculators and get rich quick real estate flippers (Main Street). Your dismissal of "wonk talk" and multiple paragraphs is exactly the type of proud ignorance we need to keep as far away from the levers of power in the Democratic Party as possible. I don't care if you need things bullet pointed at a 5th grade reading level, it's good the president didn't dumb it down to "banks bad". Having smart people in power is a good thing, even if it forces people like you to confront your intellectual limitations. Kilroy posted:You're so close. You're right there. You almost figured it out but your hubris has apparently put your head back up your rear end for you. drat shame. Your misconceptions about the election are impressively thorough. Trump dismissed criticism from his base all the time, and labeled the dissenters losers for having the temerity to question him. Reince Priebus told him he needed to drop out for the good of the party after pussygate and trump told him to get hosed. Trump didn't win by pandering to the republican base, he won by challenging Republican orthodoxy on a number of issues. Look at the massive shifts in republican opinion on trade, or Putin. He told the republican base they were wrong on free trade and wrong on Russia, and they believed him! They rallied around him because they thought he could win, and the ones with doubts just went all in on lesser-evilism, and it worked like a charm. I wish our party had been smart enough to stay organized with lesser evilism and was less concerned about our candidate's purity of virtue, that's exactly what I've been saying for months.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
That is not a rhetorical attack. It's objectively not a rhetorically attack. E: my dismissal of "wonk talk" is about how voters understand things. Political speeches should be aimed at the voters and buddy, I can promise you that nobody normal could ever listen to that speech and think that Obama had just roasted the banks. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
Did you read all three paragraphs, or did the existence of multiple paragraphs tell you all you needed to know?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:39
|
|
|
I feel like we should lie to our supporters and also court Trumpers I am sure they're sane, normal people who totally didn't support him for racist reas...*puts hand to ear, nods to producer* https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/834592898901479424 Oh... well then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
I had already read all three paragraphs and listened to all three paragraphs and I'm telling you right now: that was not an attack. Dude it's a matter of public record. You aren't even arguing about this the right way. Obama believed that if he talked too much poo poo on the banks then investors would be afraid that he might actually do something and the economy wouldn't improve. E: but yes, at a certain level the three paragraphs does tell everything I need to know. Obama doesn't need to have the intelligence of a 5th grader to communicate to a normal person. He is a brilliant communicator and if he wanted to get a message across he would have done it. The message he sent was that everybody is at fault. That's what "Wall Street to Mainstreet" means translated into how normal people understand politicking. The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
I think it would be monumentally stupid at this point to put in anybody besides Ellison. Purely on the basis of needing to pull in Bernie's people. There is an enormous sucking chest wound in the party right now, and it's the younger and leftier constituents who will be livid at the party if they see Perez in. Whether the hate on Perez is justified or not (personally, letting bankers off was a huge missed opportunity, and one that was a big part of what drove me to Sanders in the primaries) they cannot possibly think those young voters are going to take another perceived loss and not become disenchanted, or simply disengage. If we want to win, we need momentum. If Perez and Ellison really are the same, then it doesn't matter which wins policy-wise, but it matters a gently caress-ton politically to the base. We're not going to see Dems peel off because Ellison wins. We will see that to a much greater degree if he doesn't though. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am. I think the anger and bitterness needs some balm, and if it takes putting one guy up there over the other for that reason, then you loving put the right guy up there. I do not understand what the gently caress is so hard to understand about this. But this thread is evidence that it is hard to understand for some people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:51
|
|
|
i guess you didnt get the memo clancyeverafter, but purity test berniebro our team lesser-evilism take my ball and go home leftist centrism is very dangerous and it needs to be stopped
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:56
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:I think it would be monumentally stupid at this point to put in anybody besides Ellison. Purely on the basis of needing to pull in Bernie's people. There is an enormous sucking chest wound in the party right now, and it's the younger and leftier constituents who will be livid at the party if they see Perez in. Whether the hate on Perez is justified or not (personally, letting bankers off was a huge missed opportunity, and one that was a big part of what drove me to Sanders in the primaries) they cannot possibly think those young voters are going to take another perceived loss and not become disenchanted, or simply disengage. I really have very little to add to this. It's a fantastic summary of what I've been arguing for a while now. This is not a realm where you go for the shrewd, centrist triangulation when the base is screaming for satisfaction. This is not where you intentionally snub people and then tell them "it's the same as it would have been anyway!!" You already hosed up like that with Hillary. Learn from your mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 03:58
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:I really have very little to add to this. It's a fantastic summary of what I've been arguing for a while now. Remind me again, who is the base?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Remind me again, who is the base? Which do you think will anger any given segment of the party more: a Perez win, or an Ellison win?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:04
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:Which do you think will anger any given segment of the party more: a Perez win, or an Ellison win? Given that one segment of the party is constantly angry about something... Like as the disclosure for about the, now, 60th time -- I support Ellison (signed the petition, emailed the folks from my state that will be voting, etc.); I just absolutely do not see the reason to go nuclear over the loving DNC chair race when the two real front runners are both very good and bring strength and leadership to the position that has been lacking for basically eight years.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
is anybody watching this idiot cnn debate predictably perez is garbage and ellison getting the crowd pumped
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
kudos to perez to showing up to a debate despite losing his voice i guess
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Given that one segment of the party is constantly angry about something... I'm pretty much on the same page, but you gotta live with the base you got, not the one you wish you had. People are loving ANGRY. So honor that, respect it, and throw them a bone if that's what it takes to keep them pointing that anger in the right direction. There is enormous energy in the left and younger segments of the base right now, and doing something that will so obviously stifle that just seems utterly loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:I'm pretty much on the same page, but you gotta live with the base you got, not the one you wish you had. People are loving ANGRY. So honor that, respect it, and throw them a bone if that's what it takes to keep them pointing that anger in the right direction. There is enormous energy in the left and younger segments of the base right now, and doing something that will so obviously stifle that just seems utterly loving stupid. So... it'll be Perez then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
These guys are boring as hell, should have just been Ellison vs Perez. Even Buttigieg is a bore.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:12
|
|
|
If it will have some therapeutic effect for the small subset of leftists who still can't embrace lesser-evilism, I hope Ellison wins. But no take-backsies this time. I don't want to hear about the meaningless DNC chair concession in 6 months, not after all this business.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:that just seems utterly loving stupid. welcome to the democratic party
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
Ted_Haggard posted:So... it'll be Perez then. Yeah, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, etc. etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:I'm pretty much on the same page, but you gotta live with the base you got, not the one you wish you had. People are loving ANGRY. So honor that, respect it, and throw them a bone if that's what it takes to keep them pointing that anger in the right direction. There is enormous energy in the left and younger segments of the base right now, and doing something that will so obviously stifle that just seems utterly loving stupid. I think most people could give two shits who's chair. You have a small group yelling really loudly. Again, I prefer Ellison to win. I just think people need to calm down with the character attacks on Perez and make their case for why they think Ellison would be better -- which I think is pretty easy -- without resorting to either rehashing the primaries or idiotic poo poo about "back in 1992."
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Given that one segment of the party is constantly angry about something... So you might as well grant the position to the candidate that a huge mass of people actually do genuinely care about, then. To do otherwise is literally and intentionally shooting yourself in the foot. I'm saying this independent of my own personal opinion, which I've expressed provocatively and insistently elsewhere. It is the actual politically intelligent move to go with Ellison here, given the situation and given what actual and prospective Democrat supporters are calling for.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:15
|
|
|
Ellison responded to those "criticisms" pretty well IMO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:kudos to perez to showing up to a debate despite losing his voice i guess Perez is not the least charismatic person on that stage... Thats about the best you can say about him.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
well i mean ellison is clearly antisemitic, being a muslim and not slobbering all over israel's dick
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:So you might as well grant the position to the candidate that a huge mass of people actually do genuinely care about, then. To do otherwise is literally and intentionally shooting yourself in the foot. I don't think many people care about it, dude. But again, I support Ellison, am fine with Perez. mcmagic posted:Perez is not the least charismatic person on that stage... Thats about the best you can say about him. I think he has some great ideas about party infrastructure and getting full-time, paid interns that we desperately need and that maybe we don't need to spend 10m a year on meme ads. Ellison is just naturally a better speaker and a better person to send on the fundraising circuit and sunday shows though with a lot of the same ideas.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
You seem to be the most centrist poster in this thread (via rhetoric, if not actual political stance), so I'm going to present this to you. I don't mean this as an attack on you or an aspersion upon your political stances, merely as demonstrative of what I and others have been arguing here: How far would the Democrats have to shift left before you decided to vote for the fascistic Republicans?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I don't think many people care about it, dude. But again, I support Ellison, am fine with Perez. General 'you', not specific. We've already established that you're an Ellison supporter, and I hope we're both right and he wins!
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:19
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:You seem to be the most centrist poster in this thread (via rhetoric, if not actual political stance), so I'm going to present this to you. I don't mean this as an attack on you or an aspersion upon your political stances, merely as demonstrative of what I and others have been arguing here: Better question is how far left they would have to go for him to consider not voting at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:21
|
|
|
if the democrats give even an inch to these 'take my ball and go home' bernouts i will take my ball and go home
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:22
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:You seem to be the most centrist poster in this thread (via rhetoric, if not actual political stance), so I'm going to present this to you. I don't mean this as an attack on you or an aspersion upon your political stances, merely as demonstrative of what I and others have been arguing here: Never. But I'm on board with a GMI and I can understand the economics behind it so it's probably not a good idea to use me as a proxy for the average moderate democrat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
who is this horrible skeleton monster masquerading as perez. its voice is like two rocks rubbing together ellison coming out IN FAVOR of purity tests, lmao Calibanibal fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Feb 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
This guy is an idiot. Contesting primaries sure hurt the republicans in 2010 and 2014 right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This guy is an idiot. Contesting primaries sure hurt the republicans in 2010 and 2014 right? It did actually. They lost a couple of gimmies when they nominated morons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxJyPsmEask
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 05:24 |
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:It did actually. They lost a couple of gimmies when they nominated morons. Except the primaries had their exact intended effect in moving the party to the right all the while seeing massive electoral gains... The Republicans have never controlled more of the government at every level as they do now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2017 04:28
|
|