|
Will Perez force the dems left? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
|
33 | 6.38% |
| No |
|
343 | 66.34% |
| Keith Ellison |
|
54 | 10.44% |
| Pete Buttigieg |
|
71 | 13.73% |
| Jehmu Green |
|
16 | 3.09% |
| Total: | 416 votes | ||
|
JeffersonClay, 1963 posted:Lyndon Johnson's presidency has already resulted in a significant, measurable increase in bigotry. You can't legislate an end to racism. It's about culture, too, and a country's leadership is an important component of the transmission and modification of culture. Why thank you, Every Pluralism-Fearing Democrat Ever. Donald Trump 'advocated' for minorities in precisely the same sense you described the Clinton campaign doing. He said he'd, you know, help them out, what did they have to lose. Did he actually campaign on any of those empty platitudes, oh, dear christ no, nobody could be so stupid as to believe that, did you see the man's loving ads? But for some reason, when it's Clinton's baseless, un-campaigned-on platitudes, we are expected to believe that no, really, when she made a series of elaborate gestures in the direction of pluralism it meant something, and that something was "she's focused too much on pluralism." Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Mar 21, 2017 |
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Portraying Trump as a bigot who would dismantle the pluralistic gains we've made was not an empty platitude. Putting Khazir Khan on stage at the DNC was not an empty platitude. I'm not sure you have a lot of credibility to suggest I don't care about minorities when you're constantly depicting attacks on bigotry as empty platitudes. They weren't. It was absolutely an empty platitude because Clinton would have absolutely continued with Obama's policy of killing people like the Khans and their son who live in other countries, because she's bought and sold by Lockheed Martin and the Saudis and needs to keep that military $$$ flowing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
z0glin Warchief posted:The issue, I think, is that "he's a racist sexist islamophobe and will be harmful to a pluralistic society" is still a Trump Bad argument, not a Hillary Good argument. She literally had "America is already great" as a slogan; she wasn't saying "vote for me, I will enact policies to help make our institutions reflect our pluralistic values" so much as "don't vote for him, he doesn't represent our values." The campaign slogan was stronger together, that's clearly about defending pluralism. She spoke at length about a positive American exceptionalism, where embracing our diversity was a core strength of the country. She contrasted Trump's sexism with the symbolism of electing the first woman president. She contrasted his racism and islamophobia with protecting and expanding the gains made in Obama's presidency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Clinton campaigned on pluralism and peace while silently letting her surrogates scream down anyone who actually wanted her to stand up for policies that can actually effect those changes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The campaign slogan was stronger together, that's clearly about defending pluralism. She spoke at length about a positive American exceptionalism, where embracing our diversity was a core strength of the country. She contrasted Trump's sexism with the symbolism of electing the first woman president. She contrasted his racism and islamophobia with protecting and expanding the gains made in Obama's presidency. She stood before America and said "We are not Donald Trump." And the Obama coalition looked back and said "Hey, same, do you want a cookie or something"
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Fiction posted:It was absolutely an empty platitude because Clinton would have absolutely continued with Obama's policy of killing people like the Khans and their son who live in other countries, because she's bought and sold by Lockheed Martin and the Saudis and needs to keep that military $$$ flowing. Ze Pollack posted:Why thank you, Every Pluralism-Fearing Democrat Ever. I'm going to take Ytlaya's advice and try not to engage with the really dumb leftists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm going to take Ytlaya's advice and try not to engage with the really dumb leftists. Nothing dumber than actually trying to offer minorities policies instead of platitudes, eh? Better water down the platitudes for next time. You'll get those suburban republicans to vote for Hillary yet!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm going to take Ytlaya's advice and try not to engage with the really dumb leftists. Explain to me how Hillary can bring the parents of a dead soldier on stage to speak while being responsible for some of the most recent heinous US foreign policy and not have it be empty platitudes. Explain how she could campaign on peace and equality while continuing to give sloppy handjobs to the Gulf Cooperation Council by bombing Yemen and funding Israeli apartheid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:The campaign slogan was stronger together, that's clearly about defending pluralism. She spoke at length about a positive American exceptionalism, where embracing our diversity was a core strength of the country. She contrasted Trump's sexism with the symbolism of electing the first woman president. She contrasted his racism and islamophobia with protecting and expanding the gains made in Obama's presidency. Hmmmm... Maybe it had something to do with you're sainted Hillary not actually covering policy in her ads. http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/8/14848636/hillary-clinton-tv-ads
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm going to take Ytlaya's advice and try not to engage with the really dumb leftists. so since you consider that to be nearly everyone on this board how soon until we see you on r/the_donald
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Hmmmm... Maybe it had something to do with you're sainted Hillary not actually covering policy in her ads. I remember in the primary she had a bunch of surprising economically leftist ads in my area but once the general rolled around they transitioned into how much of a jerk Trump was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
The only thing Hillary's focus groups could reach consensus on was that she was not Donald J. Trump, so thats what they ran on
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Radish posted:I remember in the primary she had a bunch of surprising economically leftist ads in my area but once the general rolled around they transitioned into how much of a jerk Trump was. I think that kind of campaign would've probably worked for any other democrat. It wouldn't have even been close with any other democrat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
you know what else would've helped hillary? if she and the DNC weren't so intent to cheat. we lost one DNC chair cause she was colluding with hillary, and then brazile says she wasn't gonna allow that anymore, knowing that she had just played favorites with hillary a few days before. and then she gets caught on it a few days before the election and she lies more. its amazing how stupid the dems are. was leaking debate questions to hillary worth jeapordizing her candidacy? oh, we haven't even gotten to the point where dems ask themselves that, because they still refuse to admit the primaries were a rigged farce
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
I'd still love to hear a loving compelling case that pluralism and economic issues are mutually exclusive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Condiv posted:you know what else would've helped hillary? if she and the DNC weren't so intent to cheat. we lost one DNC chair cause she was colluding with hillary, and then brazile says she wasn't gonna allow that anymore, knowing that she had just played favorites with hillary a few days before. and then she gets caught on it a few days before the election and she lies more. Nothing the DNC did mattered in the outcome of the primary. They aren't nearly that competent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Nothing the DNC did mattered in the outcome of the primary. They aren't nearly that competent. yeah, until theres actually been a look into "what the dem party did" i'm gonna doubt that. all we've seen is what's leaked, and we hear new things every so often, like the DNC punishing people who endorsed bernie. the dems have still not been straightforward with how the DNC was loving with the primary. hell, we just got a confession from brazile about the debate questions
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Condiv posted:yeah, until theres actually been a look into "what the dem party did" i'm gonna doubt that. all we've seen is what's leaked, and we hear new things every so often, like the DNC punishing people who endorsed bernie. What happened in the party with everyone lining up behind her in 2014 is not a DNC issue. They don't have the power to do that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I'm going to take Ytlaya's advice and try not to engage with the really dumb leftists. Kilroy posted:No one thinks that and supposing that they do is a strawman made to discredit them and thereby justify ignoring them. Nice work - you're part of the problem.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
JC it's pretty clear you consider everyone posting in this thread including the OP to be a "dumb leftist" so I suggest you take my earlier advice and just not post in it. I mean you could also try just not posting at all, but we'll take this one step at a time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:What happened in the party with everyone lining up behind her in 2014 is not a DNC issue. They don't have the power to do that. guy tried to endorse bernie, so this wouldn't be in 2014
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I thought the narrative was Clinton lost because her squishy centrism didn't motivate enough democrats to turn out to vote. Is it too much of a logical leap to conclude that the democrats who stayed home because centrism sucks must hold leftist views? I don't see how you can present a coherent alternative without veering deep into no true leftist territory. *leans in to mic* WRONG The majority of democrats aren't political. They're nominally democrats because they either grew up that way and don't give a poo poo, or have at least some vague sense that the Republicans are lizard people. There is no major leftist support bloc, much as there isn't a major centrist support bloc. People just want to be inspired and interested. Not bored. Clinton is boring because centrism is boring. Nobody believes that neoliberal centrism is a force for good anymore, because it has proven that it isn't. Bernie was something new. He was exciting because we haven't had a politician talk like he talks since FDR. He has the power to motivate non-political people on that basis. Trump was something new. He was exciting because we haven't had a politician talk like he talks since Berlusconi, or maybe Mussolini. He has the power to motivate non-political people on that basis. Do you see the difference? We have to motivate nominally left-leaning, but politically inactive people on the basis of positive change. Neoliberalism cannot do that. Obama motivated the masses to vote for him based on progressive rhetoric and immense, once-in-a-century personal charisma. At the exact same time, the Democrats as a party lost 900 god drat seats in 8 years. It is not enough to wait for another Obama to take the focus away from centrism, we need a platform and party identity that is inherently exciting to be a part of, much like the Republicans did with the Tea Party movement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
What I find kind of ironic is all the people going "She lost to DONALD TRUMP!  " are committing the exact same mistake Clinton made. Thinking that the quality of the Republican candidate actually matters. Yes, she based a huge chunk of her campaign around pointing out that Donald Trump was a stupid, racist, sexist, buffoon and she was not. She even got the majority of people to agree with her. But then enough of them went on to say "I guess I'll vote for the stupid, sexist, racist, buffoon because he's got the R beside his name." His votes are exactly in line with the historical norms for elections.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
Condiv posted:guy tried to endorse bernie, so this wouldn't be in 2014 That story in NJ is loving infuriating but that is how politics in NJ works. 90% of our democrats are utterly horrible. It has nothing to do with the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:That story in NJ is loving infuriating but that is how politics in NJ works. 90% of our democrats are utterly horrible. It has nothing to do with the DNC. that should be looked into too, but don't you think the poo poo that has come out of the DNC so far warrants an investigation into meddling in the primary and attempts to prevent this kind of poo poo from happening again to restore faith in the party? the party circling the wagons and saying nothingburger while at the same time claiming these revelations cost them the election is a losing strategy
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:22
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that should be looked into too, but don't you think the poo poo that has come out of the DNC so far warrants an investigation into meddling in the primary and attempts to prevent this kind of poo poo from happening again to restore faith in the party? Which revelations cost them the election?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:23
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Which revelations cost them the election? brazile's debate questions leaked a few days before the election. dems certainly thought it was damaging enough they lied their asses off about it till now the original revelations wrt dws also hurt them alot and caused a bad schism in the party that may have contributed to hillary's loss (it almost certainly didn't help). those revelations were damaging enough that DWS had to step down way ahead of schedule. Condiv fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Mar 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Condiv posted:brazile's debate questions leaked a few days before the election. dems certainly thought it was damaging enough they lied their asses off about it till now None of that had anything to do with the outcome of the either the primary or general.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:None of that had anything to do with the outcome of the either the primary or general. so you don't think dem meddling in the primary should be investigated because you don't think dem meddling hurt them at all in the general. ok, that's kinda naive since we already know hillary's favorabilty sank alongside said scandals. however, why do you think we should not investigate the extent to which the DNC abrogated its duty to remain neutral during the primaries? we already have multiple examples of the DNC acting in favor of certain candidates, and we need to know to what extent the DNC acted in favor of a candidate and try to find a way to prevent something like that happening to restore faith in the dem party. i don't know if you know this, but it's not just hillary's favorability that's in the toilet, the dems' are too. the DNC loving around with the primaries really hurt the dems with the public, and we need to deal with that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
Condiv posted:so you don't think dem meddling in the primary should be investigated because you don't think dem meddling hurt them at all in the general. ok, that's kinda naive since we already know hillary's favorabilty sank alongside said scandals. however, why do you think we should not investigate the extent to which the DNC abrogated its duty to remain neutral during the primaries? we already have multiple examples of the DNC acting in favor of certain candidates, and we need to know to what extent the DNC acted in favor of a candidate and try to find a way to prevent something like that happening to restore faith in the dem party. I agree the whole thing is lovely but: A: The DNC has no such duty B: The public doesn't care The public has no faith in the DNC because up until a couple months ago, it had an unsellable platform, and it has no idea how to sell the better platform it has now. Brazile and DWS failed by being lovely fundraisers and bad strategists for a loving decade. Ratfucking bernie is a tiny drop in a vast ocean of poo poo that is (was?) the DNC leadership. (threw that ratfuck in there for ma boi JC, what's up hilldawg)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While the people who think Hillary is worse than Trump or is some uber-corrupt cackling evil person are dumb (the people in these threads I'm talking about should be obvious), I don't think it's unreasonable to focus a lot of effort on criticizing Democrats during our current situation. I think criticism is perfectly fine. But conspiracy theories about how the party is loving over people because their guy lost is not really productive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While the people who think Hillary is worse than Trump or is some uber-corrupt cackling evil person are dumb (the people in these threads I'm talking about should be obvious)... He's Raskolnikov38 posted:so since you consider that to be nearly everyone on this board how soon until we see you on r/the_donald Talking Fiction posted:Explain to me how Hillary can bring the parents of a dead soldier on stage to speak while being responsible for some of the most recent heinous US foreign policy and not have it be empty platitudes. Explain how she could campaign on peace and equality while continuing to give sloppy handjobs to the Gulf Cooperation Council by bombing Yemen and funding Israeli apartheid. About Ze Pollack posted:Nothing dumber than actually trying to offer minorities policies instead of platitudes, eh? Y'all. And probably Kilroy and Condiv too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:He's Sad you didn't quote me 😔
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
Remember you are an extremist if you don't support yemenis getting bombed by Saidi Arabia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Even Arthur Laffer was right once. JeffersonClay, not so much.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 03:31
|
|
|
With half the thread calling out JeffersonClay on his dumb bullshit ideas all the time it's no wonder he keeps quoting a single poo poo post mentioning some "dumb leftists" and not by name. But yeah, JeffersonClay has all kinds of "Bernie people" BFFs IRL, okay 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:I agree the whole thing is lovely but: basicallly, ignore the problem instead of fix it (cause we think it doesn't matter). too bad dems don't think any of their problems matter, and hence they put out retarded poo poo like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju3K9bqPTeM
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
That's DSCC not DNC
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:That's DSCC not DNC Democrats are universally bad
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 04:43 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:That's DSCC not DNC Oh, criticism withdrawn then. I was worried the dems were pursuing the same failed strategy that airs substanceless ads that only give trump free attention instead of achieving anything. Obviously not since it's the DSCC behind this rather than the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2017 13:52
|
|