|
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 | ||
|
Not a Step posted:Meanwhile, Hillary emerged from the woods today to give a talk where she, uh, blamed everyone else for her loss. And also called for the bombing of Syria. I can't loving believe she has the gall to speak like she's planning on being a leader in the party again. She should return to the woods, her name never uttered again in regards to politics. 
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 03:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:yeah we really dodged a bullet there Hillary would have been better than Trump hands down, but thats not a real high bar to clear
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdX57Q7INe0 The most egregious part of the 2016 primary is that it seems like virtually everyone forgot how absolutely vile her 2008 campaign was: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_X-RoRghAY "Since when do Democrats attack each other on universal healthcare", indeed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 04:00
|
|
|
Heaps of Sheeps posted:The most egregious part of the 2016 primary is that it seems like virtually everyone forgot how absolutely vile her 2008 campaign was: Yeah, this notion that Clinton has withheld from attack on primary opponents is, uh, a little silly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 04:20
|
|
|
override367 posted:I don't think Sanders was hard enough on Hillary personally Remember her answer to Trump's criticisms of NAFTA at the debates was "well that's your opinion" lol. Maybe Bernie should have hammered her harder on that point so she would have a counterpoint ready instead of nuh-uh I'm not listening lalalalalala.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 04:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Exactly. He probably shouldn't have conceded on the emails either. Even though it was, at its core, complete bullshit, it would have been better if he had at least exhausted it in the public's mind before the general election started.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:It's very telling that this is the response, rather than a list of things Bernie has actually accomplished. All it tells is that Clinton wasn't very good. The political reasons for Sanders not having a lot of massive legislation under his name would be obvious: he's probably the most leftist Senator. Voting for him was part of a push to make the kind of policies he'd want possible. It's inherent in the premise of voting for him that his policies could not have happened earlier. He didn't really run on the notion that he was a very effective legislator, just that he had these ideas that people supported. Clinton, on the other hand, consciously chose to run as the candidate who 'got things done'. That was her whole thing, leaning on her experience to say she'd achieve what Sanders couldn't. The criticism of 'lack of accomplishments' applies to her too, but she doesn't have the ideas to fall back on. Trump attacked her for this at the debates, crassly but successfully. It turns out that in a world of perpetual disappointment at politics, it's actually better to be relatively unknown politically and say "I'm going to do things differently" (Trump, Sanders, Obama) than it is to say "hell yeah i own all the political decisions made in the last few decades". Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 06:39 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 06:36
|
|
|
It's incredible that she supported bombing Syria. She has the worst political instincts of all time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:Not to defend welfare reform, but it was, surprisingly, a bit more complicated than "the Clintons hate poor people" The broader issue is that there has been a shift in thought, amongst certain members of the Democratic base, about the true worth of Bill Clinton's presidency. A presidency which Hillary's political life depended on. The Clintons (and a fair amount of Democrats) were perfectly happy with proclaiming the Clinton years a massive success, nothing "a bit complicated". TImes have changed, and they weren't really able to reconcile that very well. Strengthts became weaknesses.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 06:44
|
|
|
OK so it's confirmed that the Hillary wing's strategy for 2020 is "I support Trump's wars, but remember he's a bad person so vote for me to do the wars"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:OK so it's confirmed that the Hillary wing's strategy for 2020 is "I support Trump's wars, but remember he's a bad person so vote for me to do the wars" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 07:02
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:He didn't really run on the notion that he was a very effective legislator, just that he had these ideas that people supported. If you're absolutely 100% correct but incapable of accomplishing what you advocate for because you'd rather stand on principle than ever get things done, what's the point besides feeling good about yourself? I feel like it was to Bernie's benefit that his list of accomplishments was sparse. Anything more that was anything but perfection itself and he would be worse off. Pedro De Heredia posted:It turns out that in a world of perpetual disappointment at politics, it's actually better to be relatively unknown politically and say "I'm going to do things differently" (Trump, Sanders, Obama) than it is to say "hell yeah i own all the political decisions made in the last few decades". So it will always be easier to say you can do the impossible than be someone with actual demonstrated accomplishments. If that's true we're doomed to wildcards at best (Obama?), and con men at worst (Trump). DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 07:31 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 07:25
|
|
|
I can just see the 2020 debates now. Secretary Clinton: Last week on the campaign trail you discussed our ongoing ground war in Syria, quote "The mistakes in Syria are not the responsibility of our men and women in uniform but of their Commander-in-Chief. From the decision to rush to war without waiting for diplomacy to run its course, to the failure to send enough troops and provide proper equipment for them. To the denial of the existence of a rising insurgency and the failure to adjust the military strategy. To the continued support for a government unwilling to make the necessary political compromises. The command decisions were rooted in politics and ideology, heedless of sound strategy and common sense." Yes that's right Weren't you on TV for every step of the war, expressing your support of every single action by this president. Did you not personally lobby on his behalf to pass the bipartisan Authorization of Military Force against Everyone? How do you reconcile this? Actually I was secretly against it all the whole time, but I thought lobbying for the war was the best way to keep us out of the war. See, Trump deceived me by looking competent on the big shiny TV, so I thought he had a quick easy solution, but now that he doesn't I can tell you that what I'm saying now is what I really meant all along. So what is your plan if you become president. I dunno, whatever Trump's doing is fine I guess I'll do that. And make no mistake, everything he did is horrifying and Trump must not be allowed to continue as commander in chief.
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Submarine Sandpaper posted:NAFTA is a boogieman of the right and won't be going away under this admin anyway. The "super left" itt credit support of positions that Hillary did not take, like loving the 90s welfare reform. When this is used by a democrat (lol bernie) against democrats it instantly becomes valid for the right. Democrats may have had something to do with the 90s, but I can't quite formulate the connection... Lol at the idea that the GOP wouldn't be able to figure the angle of attack on their own. They would have. The best the Democrats can do in response is to have a democratic, deliberative internal process which takes a critical look at the past and makes a statement about it taking into account as many viewpoints as possible. The democratic and deliberative parts are very important, too, because they give Democrats credibility as a reflective party that does actually care about people and their representation - unlike silencing people's voices for the sake of smoothing out the optics. Just pretending that everything is business as usual, while out of touch bureaucrats try to formulate their knee jerk defenses of the indefensible, would be the best possible thing for the GOP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 07:48
|
|
|
Donald Trump has been criticizing NAFTA since 1999, I think it's fair to say Trump would have used that attack even if Bernie hadn't committed crimethink during the primary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Juxtapose Warren's statement on Syria with Clinton's: Warren would have won.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Juxtapose Warren's statement on Syria with Clinton's:
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 08:01
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Ahem I will have you know that Warren fared poorly in polls against a Generic Democrat. Also wouldn't have gotten out the Latino vote as massively as abuel- pffffft, I'm sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:If you're absolutely 100% correct but incapable of accomplishing what you advocate for because you'd rather stand on principle than ever get things done, what's the point besides feeling good about yourself? That's a mischaracterization of Sanders, and it's a mischaracterization of what leftists and left-leaning liberals want. Getting things done is not inherently good. If the things you 'get done' are bad, then it's bad... because you got bad things done. I can't believe I have to explain such an obvious point, but here we are. Most of the things that people dislike about Clinton and the Democrats are not issues of "they didn't go far enough" or "their policy was not leftist enough". They are not issues of achieving the possible. They are issues where they act directly against the material interests and expressed desires of the people who they ostensibly represent. Obama being open to cuts to Social Security and Medicare so that he could 'get things done' is not a good thing at all! There are many situations where you do have to stand on principle! quote:So it will always be easier to say you can do the impossible than be someone with actual demonstrated accomplishments. If that's true we're doomed to wildcards at best (Obama?), and con men at worst (Trump). If your actual demonstrated accomplishments are great, then it is less of an issue. Again: the problem here is that Clinton did not actually have a great resume. She was not actually 'the most qualified candidate ever'. She did not actually have a great list of accomplishments. Her resume consists of 1) her involvement in a Democratic administration that was at odds with current liberal ideas, and whose accomplishments are seen negatively by many of the party's ostensible voters, 2) being part of a Democratic congress which was largely useless against the Bush administration and who voted for the war in Iraq, and 3) being involved in Obama's foreign policy, which was bad. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 09:30 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 09:19
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Also wouldn't have gotten out the Latino vote as massively as abuel- pffffft, I'm sorry, I couldn't keep a straight face.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 10:01
|
|
|
I'm sad Warren didn't run just because I didn't get to see the socially woke Hillsters using the same racist attacks against her (Pocahontas!) as Trumpists.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 11:00
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:It's very telling that this is the response, rather than a list of things Bernie has actually accomplished. It's better not to have compromised on basic human principles like "be compassionate towards refugees" and "don't start needless war" hth
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 11:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I can just see the 2020 debates now.  At least a lot of other Dems aren't as rah rah on this. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 12:17 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 12:15
|
|
|
The great thing about this whole Syria thing is that now we now that Iron Abluela is exactly as hawkish as trump is
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
Tight Booty Shorts posted:The great thing about this whole Syria thing is that now we now that Iron Abluela is exactly as hawkish as trump is Remember how incredulous Dems were at the idea that Clinton was as likely or maybe more likely to start a war lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 13:53
|
|
|
Yeah. It's a good thing we elected someone exactly as hawkish to stop her dastardly plans not to ruin our country domestically.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Yeah. It's a good thing we elected someone exactly as hawkish to stop her dastardly plans not to ruin our country domestically. You're right. TPP would have been a disaster.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Yeah. It's a good thing we elected someone exactly as hawkish to stop her dastardly plans not to ruin our country domestically. At least the behavior is accurately attributed to a Republican. I don't get the use of voting in Democrats that act like Republicans in every sense except social issues (when it's politically convenient to support them)
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:At least the behavior is accurately attributed to a Republican. I don't get the use of voting in Democrats that act like Republicans in every sense except social issues (when it's politically convenient to support them) u don't care about social issues?!
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 15:05
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:At least the behavior is accurately attributed to a Republican. I don't get the use of voting in Democrats that act like Republicans in every sense except social issues (when it's politically convenient to support them) Look at the Hillary's DAPL comments of needing mutual respect and safety after police attacked the non-violent protesters with dogs and didn't feel the need to update it after they started shooting water cannons and maiming people. It's like she somehow saw that Pepsi ad from the future and thought it was a great message to send to people being abused by authority they couldn't fight back against. That's after her (admittedly unintentional) gaffe where she offended Native Americans by saying "off the reservation" allowing Trump to talk about how she was insensitive to the "Indians." We need to be standing up for people like that not trying to find the most political way of not pissing off either side, which just ends up making everyone mad anyway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:If you're absolutely 100% correct but incapable of accomplishing what you advocate for because you'd rather stand on principle than ever get things done, what's the point besides feeling good about yourself? What's an example of a Senator who gets stuff done, and what metric did you use to decide that? twodot fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
~~Economic anxiety~~
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
hey,speaking of trump supporters, why the gently caress are hillary and friends loving on trump for going to war and why are they advocating for him to go to war? he's a fascist madman, and the dems are turning him loose upon the world!? is the allure of fascism too much for the diseased neoliberal mind to resist? Condiv fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Yeah. It's a good thing we elected someone exactly as hawkish to stop her dastardly plans not to ruin our country domestically. Uhhh other than social issues, where she planned to do nothing but maintain the status quo, there wasn't a lot less she could do to "ruin" the country domestically. Well of course other than acquiesce to the every demand of the donor class and financial industry which lol of course she was going to do. Plus TPP, which she also was going to do. Wow, there are a ton of variables here that the conclusion doesn't take into account. This is a real bad piece. Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
The economy is fine, carry on.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
That article says one thing, and one thing only - people who are racist are more likely to be in Camp Trump. To make from this the inference in the headline takes somebody who has been utterly failed by their education.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Call Me Charlie posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
Right from the start, believing Obama is a Muslim makes you stupid, but not necessarily a racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
A group of researchers bred a strain of monkeys with distinct pink fur. They proceeded to train these monkeys to form a tightly knit troop, and to attack any monkey that looked different from them. Finally, they released them into the wild, where their only contact with civilization would be through concealed machines periodically emitting subliminal codes designed to reinforce their conditioning. The researchers promised that every four years they would come back, take notes about their troop's behavior, and reward them with bananas if they learned to accept other monkeys as their own. If they, however, failed to overcome their conditioning, randomly selected monkeys would be punished, caged, and subjected to a course of an even more violent and xenophobic conditioning therapy. The monkeys would also be made less fit to fend for themselves. Sometimes they would cut one of their fingers, other times they would poke out an eye etc. Then they would be released again for four more years. No matter how many times this cycle repeated, the monkeys didn't learn their lesson, and remained just as xenophobic as ever. Thus the researchers concluded they were biologically predisposed to violence and hatred, and recommended that they should be culled. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Apr 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
There's a lot of really obvious holes in that Intercept piece. For example,quote:Klinkner himself grabbed headlines last summer when he revealed that the best way to identify a Trump supporter in the U.S. was to ask “just one simple question: is Barack Obama a Muslim?” Because, he said, “if they are white and the answer is yes, 89 percent of the time that person will have a higher opinion of Trump than Clinton.” This is economic anxiety? Really? No, it's being a Republican. Most Trump supporters are Republicans. This is a trivial point. Same as the trivial point of saying "well most people with low income who are of other races voted for Clinton!". It's a trivial point because it's pretending there is no context to Clinton and Trump, like these are just two random people that showed up, and random people voted for them, as opposed to candidates from two political parties with different histories and different bases of support. quote:“in 2016 Trump did worse than Mitt Romney among voters with low and moderate levels of racial resentment, but much better among those with high levels of resentment.” This is implying causation when there is only a correlation. It's entirely possible that "level of racial resentment" and "likelihood of voting for Trump" are simply two consequences of some third factor. quote:Other surveys and polls of Trump voters found “a strong relationship between anti-black attitudes and support for Trump”; Trump supporters being “more likely to describe African Americans as ‘criminal,’ ‘unintelligent,’ ‘lazy’ and ‘violent’”; more likely to believe “people of color are taking white jobs”; and a “majority” of them rating blacks “as less evolved than whites.” Sorry, but how can any of these prejudices be blamed on free trade or low wages? This paragraph is important, because notice how the author doesn't use any numbers. Just says 'more likely'. If you look at the actual numbers, what you find is this: quote:In nearly every case, Trump supporters were more likely to rate whites higher than blacks when their responses were compared with responses from Clinton supporters.For example, 32 percent of Trump supporters placed whites closer to the top level of "intelligence" than they did blacks, compared with 22 percent of Clinton supporters who did the same. What we actually see is that a substantial number of Clinton supporters also believe in negative ideas about other races. I have not been able to track the data from the poll, but the summary does not mention the races of the people polled. It's worth pointing out that, since Clinton won the majority of the African American vote, a substantial percentage of her support comes from African Americans. Meaning, that it is possible that a big part of the difference in the 'anti-AA' racism of Trump supporters versus Clinton supporters is simply because black people don't hate themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2017 17:38
|
|