|
Archonex posted:To be fair, Bernie supporters could and were at some points far more obnoxious about their support of the man. To be fair, they were mostly right. I voted for the Bernman but regret giving Hillary way too much benefit of the doubt during the primary/GE.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
Majorian posted:Well, then, you're either a moron ding ding ding we have a winner
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't think they're going to gently caress off with their votes, because they're not dumb. I think they're going to gently caress off with their efforts to organize the party around their beliefs. I'm not talking about Bernie people. I'm talking about people who think the party didn't get ratfucked and that it isn't getting ratfucked right this very second. Those people should not be organizing the party. At least you're sanguine enough about your party's chances going forward that you think you can pick and choose your allies according to your own capricious whims. Don't know where you're getting your optimism from, but good for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except giving Ellison the Deputy Chair position isn't "completely shutting them out of power" and neither was the Unity Committee or the Platform Committee.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:You've already said that you won't actually stop voting for democrats, just that you wont try to gain any influence over the party anymore. I think if you honestly think what Donna Brazile did to bernie is comparable to the party being ratfucked by a foreign intelligence service I think it's probably good that you don't get any influence in the party, even if that deprives us of your organizing talents. If the Democrats can't manage to find staff who don't type their passwords into random websites like it's 1998 and no one has ever heard of phishing before, then maybe they shouldn't go behind the electorate's back and break the rules? Elections aren't a court of law where you can just exclude evidence and the jury never sees it or knows about it. If you do shady corrupt poo poo, people are going to be mad even if bad foreign hackers uncovered it, and although some people are like me and will vote for Hillary anyway and convince their friends to do the same, not every human being is like that and it turns out that "who cares if cheating demoralizes people, we don't need them" is a bad strategy and sometimes you do need every single one of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Some people really like getting ratfucked, don't kinkshame. It felt so good during the election, why stop now? JeffersonClay posted:We're probably better off without people that can't tell the difference between losing a primary and getting ratfucked by the FSB. JeffersonClay posted:You've already said that you won't actually stop voting for democrats, just that you wont try to gain any influence over the party anymore. I think if you honestly think what Donna Brazile did to bernie is comparable to the party being ratfucked by a foreign intelligence service I think it's probably good that you don't get any influence in the party, even if that deprives us of your organizing talents. JeffersonClay posted:I don't think they're going to gently caress off with their votes, because they're not dumb. I think they're going to gently caress off with their efforts to organize the party around their beliefs. I'm not talking about Bernie people. I'm talking about people who think the party didn't get ratfucked and that it isn't getting ratfucked right this very second. Those people should not be organizing the party. Seriously, what is up with you and that word?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Homeless Friend posted:To be fair, they were mostly right. I voted for the Bernman but regret giving Hillary way too much benefit of the doubt during the primary/GE. About Hillary being lovely at campaigning and being a dumb choice for a presidential nominee? Yeah, definitely. I'll give you that. But a lot of it was just contentless noise from people who were pissed that their preferred candidate lost. See the whole "BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON!" meme and anything to do with how the election was clearly rigged as an example of what I mean. I mean, it's expected that there'd be some of that stuff to some degree. Hillary's supporters did the same thing when she lost the primary to Obama. But it was really scaled up this time to an almost ridiculous degree. readingatwork posted:Seriously, what is up with you and that word? Ratfucked is a political term for getting screwed out of something via sabotage or underhanded behavior from the opposition. Archonex fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
The DNC got hosed by both Russia and themselves.readingatwork posted:Seriously, what is up with you and that word? TBF I think I started it earlier.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:03
|
|
|
Archonex posted:About Hillary being lovely at campaigning and being a dumb choice for a presidential nominee? Yeah, definitely. I'll give you that. But a lot of it was just contentless noise from people who were pissed that their preferred candidate lost. See the whole "BERNIE WOULD HAVE WON!" meme and anything to do with how the election was clearly rigged as an example of what I mean. Obama didn't go on to lose to Sarah Palin though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
readingatwork posted:Seriously, what is up with you and that word? Don't kink shame.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
yeah normally i stick to the "no kinkshaming" rule but ive been growing increasingly uncormfortable with how jeffersonclay keeps trying to rope us in to his weird "ratfucking" roleplay. not sure what it is, dont want to know, but i dont consent to it
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Obama didn't go on to lose to Sarah Palin though. Doesn't matter. It's still a stupid thing to get upset about. Just like how the Ellison thing is stupid. If your standard for politics is that obsessing over past losses is justification for throwing shade on the whole movement to improve on things or to just effectively rage quit entirely like Kilroy claims he's going to do then you're not really a help to anyone. Heck, in some cases you can be an active detriment. That sort of behavior is exactly the sort of poo poo that's bogged down protests and similar movements. The issues Occupy Wallstreet had in some cities comes to mind as an example most recently, in fact. People expecting an optimum level of victory or ideological purity for their beliefs or they walk out on the whole thing is the bane of any organizer. Along with the dream outcome for anyone wanting to crack down on political groups or limit their influence. It's not that much different in politics on a national level too. Archonex fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:09
|
|
|
If the word ratfucking is making you uncomfortable perhaps that's your inner self wanting the ratfucking to stop. If your opinion here is the Dems deserved it for all the terrible poo poo they did to Bernie I don't think I want you anywhere near the levers of power because you're a liability.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
Seriously stop kink shaming Jc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Just a reminder for people who say the DNC chair selection was absolutely and totally above-board: https://twitter.com/NomikiKonst/status/835314705807917059 This needs to stop. Progressives are your greatest, and increasingly only, ally against Trump. Stop attacking them. Stop alienating them. Stop trying to undermine them with lies about purity testing. Centrism is not inspiring. Witness Gore, Kerry, Clinton. Witness 2010, 2014, 2016. Narrow loving losses every time, because voters were not engaged and did not feel like they were being engaged, that the candidate that they were going to vote for would materially and tangibly improve their lives. It absolutely is not. You need progressives, or at least the pretense of progressivism (2008 Campaign Obama) to get people out to vote for you. People want and need help. Like VitalSigns says, I am a captive audience. I will always vote for the furthest left candidate with any realistic chance of winning. I did not like Hillary but I held my nose and voted for her. I would have done that in a thousand iterations of the 2016 election. I am not the problem. You need to get the people who didn't vote to vote. The only way you do that is having an inspiring message, having policies that you can talk about in simple, straightforward terms that will directly and comprehensibly improve their lives and fix their problems. Telling people to gently caress off with their peasant rhetoric doesn't do that. Telling them they're wrong and idiotic doesn't do that. Intentionally taking acts to snub them, to shut them out of the party doesn't do that. Being a living avatar of contempt does not loving do that. It does the loving opposite!
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Doesn't matter. It's still a stupid thing to get upset about. Just like how the Ellison thing is stupid. If your standard for politics is that obsessing over past losses is justification for throwing shade on the whole movement to improve on things or to just effectively rage quit entirely like Kilroy claims he's going to do then you're not really a help to anyone. Heck, in some cases you can be an active detriment. Nah if Obama had somehow blown the election to VP Sarah Palin then absolutely yes there should be a conversation about how that happened and what what wrong and what to do different in the future to get better results next time. If Hillary had won, the recriminations would have been much fewer. If her coattails had brought along huge congressional majorities they would have been fewer still. Refusing to look at what what wrong and change anything after you fail is just stupid, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
i will keep voting dem because i have no other choice, many people will not because they've demonstrated they will continue to sabotage themselves and prioritize donors over constituents. we are not in a position where we can afford to lose these people, especially millennials who are now chomping at the bit to start a new party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
in adherence to proper freudian theory my discomfort would indicate that im aroused by ratfucking, not opposed to it. there is no word for 'no' in the subconscious, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
Something else the centrists in this thread may want to consider is that early indicators are pointing to Gen Z being much more conservative than previous generations: http://hispanicheritage.org/50000-generation-z-high-school-students-identify-republican/ quote:First Time Voters: So it's not just that the party is hemorrhaging the support of it's existing base, it's also pushing people just entering politics to the other side. Granted, there are only a couple sources showing this trend so far (many of which suck) so it's a bit premature break out the cyanide capsules just yet. However I find it worrying to see this trend happening at the same time that the Democratic party is making GBS threads on the younger activist wing of it's base as hard as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:Just a reminder for people who say the DNC chair selection was absolutely and totally above-board: All the people whining about purity tests from the left are pretty brazen considering the main thrust against Ellison was insufficient neoliberal purity and the need to purge wrongthink about Israel from the Democratic Party.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Who the gently caress is Dan Fendel, you can't even google him he's so irrelevant. You can find two broken links where he talks about spirituality in hospital settings in the Jewish Times. That's it. I guess he's an emeritus professor or something at SFSU? Why are you elevating this person to represent entire segments of the DNC?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:If the word ratfucking is making you uncomfortable perhaps that's your inner self wanting the ratfucking to stop. If your opinion here is the Dems deserved it for all the terrible poo poo they did to Bernie I don't think I want you anywhere near the levers of power because you're a liability. You still hung up on those wikileaks or somethin?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nah if Obama had somehow blown the election to VP Sarah Palin then absolutely yes there should be a conversation about how that happened and what what wrong and what to do different in the future to get better results next time. It's not really a conversation about what went wrong though. And it's not even that hard to diagnose where the Democrats went wrong during this last election. Anyone other than Hillary probably would have won, assuming that they could at least campaign effectively. Which even she couldn't do. Hell, one of my earlier posts in the thread touched on why the Democrats hosed up so badly and it was ignored in favor of continuing to rag on the Democrats. Meanwhile you've got Kilroy saying he's just abandoning support for the party entirely and over the past few months a not insubstantial number of posters have been screaming about how Bernie should have won at every opportunity they get. And anyone else that tries to push things towards a more useful activity tends to get dog piled on or smugly cast aside. Speaking from past experience, that isn't the actions i'd see out of political activists. It's the actions of a bunch of people throwing a tantrum over not winning and feeling like they've been cheated out of something important. Which is okay, so long as you can get past that point and can come up with a productive plan on what to do going forwards. Archonex fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Guys I got this e-mail from Joey Joe Joe Jr. Shabadoo, this election was definitely bogus. "Members of the DNC, please do not vote for Perez, he is definitely a cuck for Big Pharma or perhaps Big LuLuLemon. Please see the following link for evidence: "www.wikipedia.com." Thank you." Wow, unsavory stuff. You heard it here first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Doesn't matter. It's still a stupid thing to get upset about. Just like how the Ellison thing is stupid. If your standard for politics is that obsessing over past losses is justification for throwing shade on the whole movement to improve on things or to just effectively rage quit entirely like Kilroy claims he's going to do then you're not really a help to anyone. Heck, in some cases you can be an active detriment. failure to address the issues in OW was a pretty big factor in the outcome of this election, particularly dissatisfaction with dems pointing to a good economy as a sign that obama worked and "america is already great" even though income inequality kept rising and many poors were worse off and not seeing a solution in sight. maybe we could try not dismissing every leftist solution as too unrealistic without even trying because to the people who are suffering it sounds like bullshit meant to keep the elite on top and that feeds into anti-establishment fervor against the dems.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:failure to address the issues in OW was a pretty big factor in the outcome of this election, particularly dissatisfaction with dems pointing to a good economy as a sign that obama worked and "america is already great" even though income inequality kept rising and many poors were worse off and not seeing a solution in sight. maybe we could try not dismissing every leftist solution as too unrealistic without even trying because to the people who are suffering it sounds like bullshit meant to keep the elite on top and that feeds into anti-establishment fervor against the dems. Nowhere in my post did I "dismiss the leftist solution as too unrealistic". Nor did I say that we shouldn't look at what happened. If you're going to reply to me or address my posts at least don't put words in my mouth to try and make them seem like something they aren't. Archonex fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
*towns across the Great Blue Firewall rot* *heroin epidemic causes waves of death* *people can't get jobs any better than 39 hours/week Walmart greeter* *households now require two earners to attain same standard of living that their parents had* America is Already Great.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
 clearly this is just a bunch of hot air from leftists
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Archonex posted:the leftist solution is too unrealistic Archonex posted:we shouldn't look at what happened this poo poo is why centrists lose. jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:*A bunch of posts that Calibanibal edited.* Why don't you go back to Cspam where you can thread poo poo and try to bullshit your way to stirring up trouble without getting called on your nonsense? Archonex fucked around with this message at 02:47 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
SKULL.GIF posted:You need to get the people who didn't vote to vote. The only way you do that is having an inspiring message This needs to be emblazoned in giant fiery letters at the DNC headquarters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:
We need those corporate lobbyist donations to get elected so we can help you. OK we got a supermajority thanks to the lobbyists, now we have to let corporations write all the legislation because we can't win without them, so we can't help you. Oh we lost somehow, okay now we definitely can't turn down those corporate lobbyist donations because we need to get elected so we can help you. Repeat forever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
quote:She completely ignored the areas that ultimately went for Trump in the midwest and were largely considered somewhat reliable givens for the Democrats. Instead she ran up the score in areas that were a given to vote for her. I think one possible reason is illustrated by the attitude of dismissal towards frustrated left activists on display in this thread, or in that 'you don't want your constituents telling you what to do' DNC comment. Establishment democrats simply don't want to have anything to do with any possible voters who are in areas outside their comfort zone. Growing up in the midwest outside a rustbelt city, I got to watch as attitudes towards democrats grew more and more blase due to the lack of presence of any organizations willing to do outreach outside major cities with basic social education, while conservative and religious organizations encroached more into the normal operation of social services. (example: abstinence only sex ed). People end up not voting for democrats because there is absolutely no sign that they want to engage with any issues outside of wherever it's most cost-advantageous or convenient to do so. I think more than anything the adversarial attitude towards populist democrats shown around this election signals Democrats will likely continue to make basic outreach mistakes in 2018, when what's needed is to get the votes in not just city centers, but to supplement it with 10%+more in areas outside city centers in order to overcome gerrymandering. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:this was a strategically stupid move no matter how you look at it and i have no idea how anyone can defend it. i don't see a way out of this. Remember what happened to the Whigs?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Why don't you go back to Cspam where you can thread poo poo and try to bullshit your way to stirring up trouble without getting called on your nonsense? That's actually what D&D is/was for 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Archonex posted:The blunt fact of the matter is that in politics no one is obligated to give your opinions about how ~the way things should be~ the time of day unless you have some sort of political capital to speak of. It's a courtesy born of tradition, which many people have forgotten and the Republicans have pretty much abandoned entirely. One of the most direct ways you can build that capital is to run a successful candidate that starts to chip away at existing assumed support for centrist policies and it's establishment coalition. That's how the centrists primaried the left out of the Democrats in the first place in fact. temple fucked around with this message at 03:15 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Die Sexmonster! posted:Remember what happened to the Whigs? they fell apart from in-fighting and died?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Political capital doesn't exist. What exists is fear of primaries and a desire to not deal with angry town halls. Being organized does this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
yellowyams posted:they fell apart from in-fighting and died? You say that like it's a bad thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
I like "political capital" as a phrase because it's a tipoff that what will come next is a disingenuous defense of some heinous poo poo while dismissing all evidence and reason. "I'm not interested in the evidence that your proposal is objectively better and is more popular among the electorate, your friends don't run the party and you don't have any political capital so I don't need to support it." *loses elections at every level*
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 03:18
|
|