|
JeffersonClay posted:The European left has the same problem with useful idiots defending putin as the American left, and plenty of the "Clinton is red baiting and trying to start world war 3!!!" Idiocy came from exactly those idiots. It's clear why you feel a need to deflect from that. This is the worst attempt at deflection I've seen in quite some time. Congrats, take a dunce hat.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Our preferred narrative was right, your reflexive opposition to that narrative was dumb. between that and chugging wikileaks ratfucking to fuel your Bernie was backstabbed narrative, yes, the outcome of the election could easily have been affected. "Now let me tell you how those horrible, abrasive, unfriendly Berniebros are tearing apart the Democratic Party." JeffersonClay posted:87% of democrats, 66% of independents and 41% of republicans disagree. Who gives a poo poo? Unless Trump is impeached, convicted and removed from office, gambling on this issue to be the thing that turns the 2018 election is spectacularly idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:48
|
|
|
Jamming your fingers in your ears and chanting "it didn't happen" doesn't change the facts. We got ratfucked, and it worked because jilted Bernouts couldn't get over the primary. Yes, I am a big dumb idiot for suggesting an issue that broad majorities of the electorate think is important might be a good issue for democrats to push. JeffersonClay fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Jamming your fingers in your ears and chanting "it didn't happen" doesn't change the facts. We got ratfucked, and it worked because jilted Bernouts couldn't get over the primary. No, it worked because John Podesta doesn't know how to recognize a loving phishing email.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
"Why don't you dumb bernie bros get over the primary so we can unify the party? Now let me tell you how you're all dumb ratfucked traitors with absolutely nothing to back it up."JeffersonClay posted:Our preferred narrative was right, your reflexive opposition to that narrative was dumb. between that and chugging wikileaks ratfucking to fuel your Bernie was backstabbed narrative, yes, the outcome of the election could easily have been affected. Your preferred narrative was irrelevant because your hypercompetent campaign assumed that their computer model overrode reality.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Our preferred narrative was right, your reflexive opposition to that narrative was dumb. between that and chugging wikileaks ratfucking to fuel your Bernie was backstabbed narrative, yes, the outcome of the election could easily have been affected. maybe if you wanted your ratfucking narrative to work you shouldnt have ratfucked your inter-party opponents during the primary!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:No, it worked because John Podesta doesn't know how to recognize a loving phishing email. In absolute fairness, neither do a whole lot of regular people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
John podesta got hacked, therfore I had no choice but to put my mouth on Putin's penis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
The Rust Belt would not have magically started trusting Clinton if everyone had in lockstep agreed that there was foul play at hand. They didn't trust her because she's a rightfully untrustworthy person, and has a long political career to show it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:In absolute fairness, neither do a whole lot of regular people. True, but Hillary Clinton had all that loving money yet for some reason couldn't afford to give her highest-level staff basic information security awareness training. Can I say with absolute certainty that it would have worked? No, but had they done this, the argument that she was loving incompetent could not be made.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
When Hillary's campaign started to flail in September, maybe she should have actually gone out to that blue wall and campaigned in those states? Nah, gotta be Russia's fault. We'll win anyway because those pussy tapes will sink him. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:John podesta got hacked, therfore I had no choice but to put my mouth on Putin's penis. Holy poo poo, you are an angry little man. No one in this thread currently arguing with you supports Vladimir loving Putin. Fiction posted:When Hillary's campaign started to flail in September, maybe she should have actually gone out to that blue wall and campaigned in those states? Nah, gotta be Russia's fault. We'll win anyway because those pussy tapes will sink him. "Plus, my magic computer says I'll win them anyway! What's that? Volunteers in Iowa want to go canvas in Michigan? Turn that loving bus around!" "What's that? My husband, who enjoyed immense electoral success in his campaigns for the Presidency, says maybe we shouldn't take the Rust Belt for granted? gently caress him, my computer box says I'm going to win regardless!" Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
Fiction posted:When Hillary's campaign started to flail in September, maybe she should have actually gone out to that blue wall and campaigned in those states? Nah, gotta be Russia's fault. We'll win anyway because those pussy tapes will sink him. Dude, just loving stop. Hillary Clinton is not running for the DNC chair no matter how much you want to turn this into a relitgation of the primaries, or a relitigation of the mistakes that campaign made. I get that you're very angry that Bernie did not win the primary. I get that. I get that you're mad Donald Trump is now our president. Guess what, I am too. I am really angry that I am going to be forced to once again fight for my basic right to exist as loving human for no other reason than I like dudes instead of women. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
It's really goddamn surreal to see the exact same people who were 100% certain that Clinton had it in the bag and they didn't need those loving lefties anyway and the hacks were a nothingburger turn around and declare that the obviously irrelevant leaks caused those obviously irrelevant lefties to hand Trump an obviously impossible victory.BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Dude, just loving stop. Hillary Clinton is not running for the DNC chair no matter how much you want to turn this into a relitgation of the primaries, or a relitigation of the mistakes that campaign made. Actually I think you'll find that pointing out what Hillary's campaign did wrong is pretty loving important if the party is going to learn from its own dumbfuck mistakes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Fiction posted:When Hillary's campaign started to flail in September, maybe she should have actually gone out to that blue wall and campaigned in those states? Nah, gotta be Russia's fault. We'll win anyway because those pussy tapes will sink him. Umm I think you'll find that Mrs. Clinton's schedule was completely taken up in September by...convulsing and collapsing in the middle of New York on the anniversary of 9/11 so she couldn't have possibly made any of those visits.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Jamming your fingers in your ears and chanting "it didn't happen" doesn't change the facts. We got ratfucked, and it worked because jilted Bernouts couldn't get over the primary. You argue (absent evidence) that Hillary lost because of Sanders supporters. You also say that for the Democratic Party to win, it needs the left to give up and unify with the center. You then spend a whole lot of effort telling Sanders supporters that they're piece of poo poo idiots who don't belong in the Democratic Party. I can't figure you out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:03
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Actually I think you'll find that pointing out what Hillary's campaign did wrong is pretty loving important if the party is going to learn from its own dumbfuck mistakes. I think a retrospective on what went wrong is useful. I think screaming into the wind about how "Bernie would have won" without any critical thought to it just dumb as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think a retrospective on what went wrong is useful. I think screaming into the wind about how "Bernie would have won" without any critical thought to it just dumb as gently caress. I think that pretending that the people who are doing the former are actually doing the latter is even dumber. EDIT: Also applying critical thought to it all leads us to the clear conclusion that Bernie woulda won. This is important because it gives an indication of what the Dems need to do in order to get back from the goddamn brink of oblivion. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:I think a retrospective on what went wrong is useful. I think screaming into the wind about how "Bernie would have won" without any critical thought to it just dumb as gently caress. I think that while some folks in this thread aren't applying it, there is a strong case to be made that with a good campaign Bernie Sanders could very well be President right now. He could have used the same anti-establishment rhetoric as Trump, except without all the racism and sexism. Bernie's support among card-carrying Democrats was slightly less than Hillary's, this is true--but it was orders of magnitude higher with Democratic-leaners and independents, and those are the people that are harder to convince. In a year that was anti-establishment enough to elect Trump, Bernie Sanders could have won a general election with a sizable majority of Democrats, disaffected independents, and maybe a few Republicans who were looking for someone honest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:10
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I think that pretending that the people who are doing the former are actually doing the latter is even dumber. Your critical thought is that Bernie, who lost to her in the primary, would have magically won in the general because Racist Whites in the rust belt who voted for a guy promising retribution against Those People would have suddenly gone "oh no, I am going to vote for the old maple grandpa socialist." Alter Ego posted:I think that while some folks in this thread aren't applying it, there is a strong case to be made that with a good campaign Bernie Sanders could very well be President right now. The problem is that you're excusing the role that racism and sexism played in Trump's favor. Like people were drawn to that explicitly. And you're also assuming that Bernie would have ran a perfect/good campaign based on what? He lost in the primary despite spending millions of loving dollars and never facing a single negative attack ad and only the mildest of mild rebukes from his opponent. BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:12
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Your critical thought is that Bernie, who lost to her in the primary, would have magically won in the general because Racist Whites in the rust belt who voted for a guy promising retribution against Those People would have suddenly gone "oh no, I am going to vote for the old maple grandpa socialist." And we would counter that those people were not the people we were trying to convince. There were many people who hated Trump and yet stayed home because they hated Hillary just as much. You can debate whether this hatred was warranted or not, but the fact is that a lot of people didn't vote because they felt both choices were equally abhorrent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Your critical thought is that Bernie, who lost to her in the primary, would have magically won in the general because Racist Whites in the rust belt who voted for a guy promising retribution against Those People would have suddenly gone "oh no, I am going to vote for the old maple grandpa socialist." No, it's because he was doing better by every available metric back during the primaries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:I think that while some folks in this thread aren't applying it, there is a strong case to be made that with a good campaign Bernie Sanders could very well be President right now. This counterfactual is both useless, old as dirt, and highly irrellevant to who is DNC chairperson. Who is DNC chairperson is barely worth discussing except to the extent that bernouts want to flip out about perez. Cerebral Bore posted:No, it's because he was doing better by every available metric back during the primaries. Clearly not votes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:And we would counter that those people were not the people we were trying to convince. And yet, he couldn't win the primary. So in terms of how we move forward as party, we have to understand that there are limitations to reducing what we should do going forward to "Bernie would have won."
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:And yet, he couldn't win the primary. You have clearly not understood much if you can't differentiate between an internal party election and the general election, and this is one of the lessons you need to learn from the fact that Bernie Woulda Won. Nevvy Z posted:Clearly not votes. No, I'm talking about polling and favourability ratings. You know, the things that indicate how likely you're to win the general. EDIT: Or in general the thing you two need to realize is that you might not be as good at understanding this whole politics thing as you think you are, as exemplified by the dumb unspoken assumptions and basic logical errors you both have on full display here. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:You argue (absent evidence) that Hillary lost because of Sanders supporters. You also say that for the Democratic Party to win, it needs the left to give up and unify with the center. You then spend a whole lot of effort telling Sanders supporters that they're piece of poo poo idiots who don't belong in the Democratic Party. he's a stupid hack? its not too hard to figure out
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:No, I'm talking about polling and favourability ratings. You know, the things that indicate how likely you're to win the general. Except for as we learned, really painfully in November, the only thing that matters is votes. Hillary led Trump in every poll in every Rust Belt State she lost. Cerebral Bore posted:You have clearly not understood much if you can't differentiate between an internal party election and the general election, and this is one of the lessons you need to learn from the fact that Bernie Woulda Won. Reminder, I support Ellison. Cerebral Bore posted:EDIT: Or in general the thing you two need to realize is that you might not be as good at understanding this whole politics thing as you think you are, as exemplified by the dumb unspoken assumptions and basic logical errors you both have on full display here. 
BI NOW GAY LATER fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Feb 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Not getting into primarychat. Sorry, I thought it was popular votechat instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Except for as we learned, really painfully in November, the only thing that matters is votes. Hillary led Trump in every poll in every Rust Belt State she lost. Dude, this is loving dumb. We're talking a real basic comparison of starting positions WRT the general here, and back when Bernie was still in the polls, his starting position was better in every way. Hence, the unspoken assumption that the primary automatically selects the better candidate is dumb as hell. You're not even talking about the right thing, and this is another example of the problem. EDIT: Hell, this isn't even about what canidate you would prefer, it's about making basic errors when you try to analyze actually existing politics.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:That's super silly. Are car manufacturers misleading the customer when they revise the design of a car model from one year to another but keep the name? Was Obama misleading when he said "if you like your plan, you can keep it?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Was Obama misleading when he said "if you like your plan, you can keep it?" Nobody would have given a poo poo if he was had their plan suddenly got better and cheaper. EDIT: This is also why you keep your promises vague if you're making big promises.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Dude, this is loving dumb. We're talking a real basic comparison of starting positions WRT the general here, and back when Bernie was still in the polls, his starting position was better in every way. Hence, the unspoken assumption that the primary automatically selects the better candidate is dumb as hell. You're not even talking about the right thing, and this is another example of the problem. "Better Candidate" is a meaningless phrase then, because you're defining it by poo poo to mean that you wanted Bernie and he didn't win. Cerebral Bore posted:EDIT: Hell, this isn't even about what canidate you would prefer, it's about making basic errors when you try to analyze actually existing politics. again --
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:"Better Candidate" is a meaningless phrase then, because you're defining it by poo poo to mean that you wanted Bernie and he didn't win. No, it has a meaning. It's the candidate who is most likely to win the general, given the available data and conditions under which the elections are to be held. This was Bernie, and Bernie Woulda Won regardless of which canidate you or I prefer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:36
|
|
|
I'm a Bernie supporter and believe he would have won the general, but I don't think the Super Delegates should have gone against the the vote count. Everyone that voted for Clinton in the primary made a huge mistake, but there was nothing to do about it by April or so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Nobody would have given a poo poo if he was had their plan suddenly got better and cheaper. Sure, and there are going to be people who would be net losers on a transition to single payer and you're drat sure to hear about them
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:No, it has a meaning. It's the candidate who is most likely to win the general, given the available data and conditions under which the elections are to be held. Based on the same metrics that failed Clinton! Like you're basing your supposition of "Bernie would have won" on the same metrics that showed Clinton beating Trump, and that's not even adding confounding factors for why that's bad analysis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Alan Dershowitz has pledged to leave the democrats if Keith wins, further eroding arguments in favor of Perez
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Holy poo poo, you are an angry little man. No one in this thread currently arguing with you supports Vladimir loving Putin. People who blame Vladimir Putin's victims for Vladimir Putin's crimes are indeed supporting Vladimir putin, even if that's not their intent. Fiction posted:The Rust Belt would not have magically started trusting Clinton if everyone had in lockstep agreed that there was foul play at hand. They didn't trust her because she's a rightfully untrustworthy person, and has a long political career to show it. This was literally the narrative Putin wanted you to parrot. Dr. Fishopolis posted:You argue (absent evidence) that Hillary lost because of Sanders supporters. quote:You also say that for the Democratic Party to win, it needs the left to give up and unify with the center. quote:You then spend a whole lot of effort telling Sanders supporters that they're piece of poo poo idiots who don't belong in the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Can we  it now or does Fans still need to hit Gaddafi Did Nothing Wrong for Internecine Bullshit bingo?The vote is tomorrow. Important things to remember:
... this is a Burger King drive thru? Oops. Whopper Jr, please.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 09:33 |
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Can we but...that's boring
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 22:49
|
|