The democrats are a waste

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed.
B	77	25.50%
K	160	52.98%
M	65	21.52%
Total:	229 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Agnosticnixie: Jan 6, 2015

People who brought up real flaws (which her foreign policy was particularly full of but it felt like just about everything she offered would be means tested garbage that ultimately ended up like Cuomo's education plan, and of course her inability to come out against things like DAPL) were repeatedly told that these things were irrelevant or conspiratorial. Her endless lust for war, particularly wars AIPAC happens to want very much (like Iraq in 03, Lebanon in 06 (which while the US wasn't involved she vocally supported) or obliterating Iran (her words) at an unknown future date) was said to be a meaningless critique borderline on the level of bringing up Benghazi.

Right wing attacks happened but there was some really big exasperation at the fact that anything that was meaningfully bad about her was effectively brushed off through the primary and I can understand how it would get there. Besides she herself has never been above right wing smears, which she heaped on very thickly during the 08 primaries.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 06:34

Mister Facetious: Apr 21, 2007; I think I died and woke up in L.A.,
I don't know how I wound up in this place...

Agnosticnixie posted:

obliterating Iran (her words) at an unknown future date)

I vaguely recall her supporting "preemptive nuclear strikes" in the '08 Primary with Obama in some inane interview. Anyone remember that?

# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:33

Taintrunner: Apr 10, 2017; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

Mister Facetious posted:

I vaguely recall her supporting "preemptive nuclear strikes" in the '08 Primary with Obama in some inane interview. Anyone remember that?

We would, uh, totally obliterate them. Haw- haw!

# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:37

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Fulchrum posted:

No. They move to the left because of political opportunity. They move to the RIGHT because of political pressure. Hence why refusing to vote for them because they aren't left enough is the most self defeating backwards idea possible.

At a time when progressives were unelectable by any stretch of the imagination, pressure forced Dems to the right. Even with that shift, they still fought tooth and nail for healthcare, and again received substantial pressure with absolutely no support from the left (both times, 94 AND 2010). Had they received support and not had a Republican Congress limiting their options hugely, they would have governed differently. Unfortunately, that can only be a hypothetical because the left refuses to vote when needed.

People don't join the Democrats because they hate people and love money. The Republican party exists for that. They have an inherent desire to move things left, but they also have to deal with the real world. If you can't get the votes for single payer, you need to get what you can. The left takes that as a betrayal, because people want to believe politics is easy.

They fought tooth and nail so hard that Bill proposed cuts in Medicare in 1996.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/1996/10/clintons_medicare_cuts.html

Plus there was Bill's plot to preety much destroy both SS and Medicare.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich

I mean you're boys really tried their hardest. To destroy what little was left. @ everyone else. Should we take bets on Fulchrum's responses?

# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:42

Mister Facetious: Apr 21, 2007; I think I died and woke up in L.A.,
I don't know how I wound up in this place...

Taintrunner posted:

We would, uh, totally obliterate them. Haw- haw!

Yeah, I somewhat misremembered the details; she was cheerleading war with Iran, whether preemptive or retaliatory.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:44

Goa Tse-tung: Feb 11, 2008; ;3; Yams Fan

Crowsbeak posted:

They fought tooth and nail so hard that Bill proposed cuts in Medicare in 1996.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/1996/10/clintons_medicare_cuts.html

Plus there was Bill's plot to preety much destroy both SS and Medicare.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich

I mean you're boys really tried their hardest. To destroy what little was left. @ everyone else. Should we take bets on Fulchrum's responses?

since that didn't succeed it means Clinton didn't actually attack those entitlements which means he is actually good :smugdog:

# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:48

Kokoro Wish: Jul 23, 2007; Post? What post? Oh wow.
I had nothing to do with THAT.

Crowsbeak posted:

They fought tooth and nail so hard that Bill proposed cuts in Medicare in 1996.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/1996/10/clintons_medicare_cuts.html

Plus there was Bill's plot to preety much destroy both SS and Medicare.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich

I mean you're boys really tried their hardest. To destroy what little was left. @ everyone else. Should we take bets on Fulchrum's responses?

And Monica Lewinski is laudable as an American hero for sidelining this poo poo.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:50

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 33 hours!

"Stop saying we're too much like Republicans! This is exactly why we need to become more like the Republicans so we can get voters that don't say things like that!"

# ? Jul 21, 2017 08:52

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Crowsbeak posted:

They fought tooth and nail so hard that Bill proposed cuts in Medicare in 1996.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/1996/10/clintons_medicare_cuts.html

Plus there was Bill's plot to preety much destroy both SS and Medicare.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/05/29/the-pact-between-bill-clinton-and-newt-gingrich

I mean you're boys really tried their hardest. To destroy what little was left. @ everyone else. Should we take bets on Fulchrum's responses?

Now, I know you are not a smart person. Most concepts elude you. But, and I think you might find this illuminating, 1996 and 1997 come after 1994.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 09:20

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Fulchrum posted:

Now, I know you are not a smart person. Most concepts elude you. But, and I think you might find this illuminating, 1996 and 1997 come after 1994.

So we have, "well he tried doing good once and that makes every bad thing he did excusable.".

# ? Jul 21, 2017 09:53

Cerebral Bore: Apr 21, 2010; Fun Shoe

From what I've been able to gather, the Fulchrum brand of leftism seems to consist of the idea that we can't push actual good policy because that could lead to right-wing backlash and the GOP gaining power, so instead we have to push centrist half-measures which actually led to the GOP taking power. Also everybody who disagrees with this idea is a racist nazi traitor. Is this about it?

# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:06

Fulchrum: Apr 16, 2013; by R. Guyovich

Crowsbeak posted:

So we have, "well he tried doing good once and that makes every bad thing he did excusable.".

This is my fault, I keep forgetting how stupid you are. Lemme try and break it down further.

In 1994n big country you are in had big e-lec-tion. That's when all the people get to, and they all say who they want. Now, 94 was not a year where the president - the man in the big house who leads America - Was chosen. But it was a year for Congress to get chosen. Republicans - those are the bad guys - won because leftists - that's you - didn't bother to even try.

Did I make it simple enough for you?

# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:09

Sneakster: Jul 13, 2017; by R. Guyovich

Oh, so the flailing is just a panic attack at losing relevancy to right wing imbeciles and childish socialists.

Crowsbeak posted:

They fought tooth and nail so hard that Bill proposed cuts in Medicare in 1996.
...
Plus there was Bill's plot to preety much destroy both SS and Medicare.

Don't forget a jobs programs that never materialized to go with his 96 welfare reform that got rid of AFDC. Also don't forget the many, many families that were destroyed by those cuts. Some of the children from them even got to watch Hillary lose twice. Trump is an awful thing, but Clinton's ambition being ended by retarded TV character is kind cathartic.

Crowsbeak posted:

Should we take bets on Fulchrum's responses?

I'm soulless cretin and nothing bad the new democrats did was their fault.

Edit: called it!

Mister Facetious posted:

I vaguely recall her supporting "preemptive nuclear strikes" in the '08 Primary with Obama in some inane interview. Anyone remember that?

Yeah, I remember telling someone I was dating at the time that Clinton said she'd nuke Iran and the response "well, she's lost my vote"

E2:

Fulchrum posted:

This is my fault, I keep forgetting how stupid you are. Lemme try and break it down further.
Did I make it simple enough for you?

Your candidate couldn't beat a reality TV character who's a well known conman and even though everyone knows he's involved in a treasonous criminal conspiracy with the Russian mafia, he's still more popular.

Stop supporting terrible candidates with terrible policies. You're the one backing someone who was never polling outside the margin of error against TV Mussolini.

Your candidate failed, your policies failed, and people have literally gone with noted honest genius Donald Trump over the poo poo you can't hawk without a thumb on the scale. You're projecting your incompetence, failure, and moral bankruptcy on anyone else because your empty soulless trash candidate is an indefensible failure.

Sneakster fucked around with this message at 10:34 on Jul 21, 2017

# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:14

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 33 hours!

Speaking of 1994, why did that happen?

quote:

In 1994, the Democrats lost control of the House after turnout amongst labor households and non-unionized working class families declined. Polling found that upset about NAFTA�s passage and specifically about local representative�s support of NAFTA moved many traditional Democratic party voters to stay home on election day. The 1994 elections were remarkable in that low turnout � not swings from Democratic to Republican party support � decided many of the seats which switched parties on margins of fewer than 1000 votes.

Oh.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:41

SSJ_naruto_2003: Oct 12, 2012

Fulchrum has been posting in this thread for 11 hours straight by the way.
That's a lot of dedication to defending Hillary and the center-right blue dogs.

Mister Facetious posted:

Yeah, I somewhat misremembered the details; she was cheerleading war with Iran, whether preemptive or retaliatory.

Cheerleading wars? Why I never.

SSJ_naruto_2003 fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Jul 21, 2017

# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:47

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 33 hours!

Incoming: "well it's the working class' fault for not supporting us as we stabbed them in the back, they let conservatives in! Obviously our decision to gently caress over our own voters is beyond question, of course, it is they who should have chosen not to get demoralized after we hosed them over"

# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:52

Sneakster: Jul 13, 2017; by R. Guyovich

VitalSigns posted:

Speaking of 1994, why did that happen?

Oh.

Its almost like under thee Clintons the democratic party betrayed every value it ever held, sold out the poor as a captive audience, and pandered to the middle class while embracing everything the GOP did through obscenely right wing economic, social, and legal policy that stomped on the poor, gays, and minorities.

Then Obama came a long, and basically betrayed all of them again through complete in action with the only progress being made out of sheer inertia in every other part of the government.

Then Sanders offered the base hope, and the old gentry backed the hollow ghost of the southern democrats past to throw the primary. So he were are with Trump.

And here's liberal saying to go to the center. Should probably ignore them, like everyone did in the election.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:53

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

VitalSigns posted:

Speaking of 1994, why did that happen?

Oh.

i love that she wanted to pass nafta 2, nafta harder as well

# ? Jul 21, 2017 10:59

FuriousxGeorge: Aug 8, 2007; We've been the best team all year.

They're just finding out.

quote:

Why the lack of dialogue with reformist notions? Simple. Centrists, as a group, are not concerned with progressive ideas. They believe in the status quo. However, they prefer to see themselves as enlightened liberals. Part of their reason for being centrist is class-bound: they are fine with keeping the world as it is. Some of the disdain is social: most of them have been educated and brought up in an order which rewards middle-class and upper-middle class values.

Some of their justification is based on reasons of pride: they do not want to think of themselves as conservative. And the largest element of centrism is fear: they genuinely believe that the rest of the world is secretly reactionary or openly stupid. They are afraid of their base. Leftism, in any form, disrupts this careful emotional balancing act. To the center, Leftism is awkward: it makes the centrists look conservative (which they despise), it makes them feel privileged (which they deny), it makes them feel electorally vulnerable (which they fear).

Tone is part of their objection, but not the actual substance. Chapo and the rest of the Dirtbag Left could wear suits of roses and laser-carve �RESISTANCE� on the dry face of the moon, and it would never be enough. Leftists disrupt the alt-center�s worldview point-by-point. It is not the Left�s arguments, or their stances, or their organizations, or their podcasts that irritates. The centrists object to their existence.
-
The center mostly despises Trump for his bumbling oafishness, not because his air war has already killed over two thousand citizens. To the centrist, one is unforgivable; the other is merely unfortunate. Those are the rules of the road. Imagine a judge obsessed with the dress code in his court and ignorant of the carceral state he aids. That is the centrist in miniature. Civility on the surface, and authority beneath.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/07/the-hall-monitors-tale-the-centers-war-on-chapo-tr.html

FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 12:13 on Jul 21, 2017

# ? Jul 21, 2017 12:09

White Rock: Jul 14, 2007; Creativity flows in the bored and the angry!

Fulchrum posted:

They have an inherent desire to move things left,

No they don't.

Also pepole are mad at Hillary not only for her many policy weakness incompatible with leftism, but because despite being the "most qualified candidate", SHE LOST. And what she represents will continue to lose. Time to reinvent yourself.

Fulchrum posted:

Yes, Bernie Bros

Obligatory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moNHfeBJ81I

# ? Jul 21, 2017 12:45

NewForumSoftware: Oct 8, 2016; by Lowtax

Fulchrum posted:

Kay. They did. The ACA. Guess the gently caress what? You shitters HATED it with a fiery passion and said it was a betrayal.

it was

funny how "Crazy" leftists who are totally unelectable also happen to have the most popular politician in America

oh well, let's bomb some more brown people, clinton/zuck 2020

# ? Jul 21, 2017 13:00

Avirosb: Nov 21, 2016; Everyone makes pisstakes

Awfully quiet here about Chuck "Anti-zionism is basically the holocaust" Schumer but I guess that's a :can:

that shouldn't be opened.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 13:07

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

VitalSigns posted:

Nitpick: Hillary won Tim Kaine's home state of Virginia

As a Virginian I don't think that he mattered either way. It was super close (the state is getting more and more blue but who knows if that will continue in Trump's America) and I don't know a single person that gave a poo poo about Kaine. He was a lame pick unless there's some actual real data I haven't seen reported.

Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Jul 21, 2017

# ? Jul 21, 2017 13:38

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Avirosb posted:

Awfully quiet here about Chuck "Anti-zionism is basically the holocaust" Schumer but I guess that's a that shouldn't be opened.

Open it if you want

I doubt you'll find supporters of that turd of a bill here though

# ? Jul 21, 2017 13:46

B B: Dec 1, 2005

Radish posted:

As a Virginian I don't think that he mattered either way. It was super close (the state is getting more and more blue but who knows if that will continue in Trump's America) and I don't know a single person that gave a poo poo about Kaine. He was a lame pick unless there's some actual real data I haven't seen reported.

Virginia actually wasn't really any closer than the previous two presidential elections. Clinton beat Obama's 2012 performance in both votes and the spread; Obama got a much higher percentage in 2008, but that was a wave election. Trump did even worse than Romney.

2016
Clinton - 1,981,473 (49.73%)
Trump - 1,769,443 (44.4%)

2012
Obama - 1,971,820 (51.16%)
Romney - 1,822,522 (47.28%)

2008
Obama - 1,959,532 (52.63%)
McCain - 1,725,005 (46.33%)

Trump's not really that popular in Virginia. Even my religious family from central Virginia who voted for him hate him--they just hate Clinton more.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 13:51

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

B B posted:

Virginia actually wasn't really any closer than the previous two presidential elections. Clinton beat Obama's 2012 performance in both votes and the spread; Obama got a much higher percentage in 2008, but that was a wave election. Trump did even worse than Romney.

2016
Clinton - 1,981,473 (49.73%)
Trump - 1,769,443 (44.4%)

2012
Obama - 1,971,820 (51.16%)
Romney - 1,822,522 (47.28%)

2008
Obama - 1,959,532 (52.63%)
McCain - 1,725,005 (46.33%)

Trump's not really that popular in Virginia. Even my religious family from central Virginia who voted for him hate him--they just hate Clinton more.

I think "Trump's really not that popular they just hate Clinton more" sums up a good amount of the 2016 election.

That's cool about the spread since I went to bed before they finished counting NoVa as it was lost at that point. Go Virginia.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 13:53

ExiledTinkerer: Nov 4, 2009

Mister Facetious posted:

I vaguely recall her supporting "preemptive nuclear strikes" in the '08 Primary with Obama in some inane interview. Anyone remember that?

Aside from other folks chiming in, and unless there was some other instance of this, it was actually a bit worse as the rough gist of this statement got bandied about to show how tough the Dems were on national security at the very first Primary debate---because coming off of Bush's adventure you totally want to double down on ~No Options Off The Table~ :wink:

rhetoric.

IIRC, Gravel and Kucinich were about the only ones to not affirm it---Gravel in particular flipping his poo poo on "Who the hell do you wanna nuke, Barack?" Obama was one of the things that quickly marshaled the DNC machine to get him/them kicked out ASAP by whatever means as there was no room for anything approaching doves in the shiny new Democratic high echelons.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 14:20

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

JeffersonClay posted:

So anyone advocating the government provide its citizens with better skills through state funded education is in fact a capitalist running dog. Good to know.

College shouldn't be a job training program. If business needs workers with particular highly specialized skills, it should be businesses paying for that, not the workers or the state.

Fulchrum posted:

And where were the leftist voters in 2010 to prevent them getting that power? Oh, I know, indulging in a belief they had been betrayed because Obama didn't wave a magic wand and change everything permanently.

Sitting at home because they'd elected Democrats in a massive sweep only to see fuckall for it? The Dems dug their own graves for 2010 by packing the stimulus with tax cuts and defanging most of the useful bits, quietly drowning the public option while letting the insurance industry write their health insurance reforms, and disappointing many traditionally pro-Democrat groups by punting on various civil rights and worker's rights issues.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 14:20

call to action: Jun 10, 2016; by FactsAreUseless

So it turns out the LA Review of Books has a loving awesome comment section:

Raffey posted:

Guilty as charged. In my work, the pressure to use data and statistics to support my findings was overwhelming. As a result, I relegated the most valuable findings to paragraphs labeled "anecdotal" evidence (which were the tales real people told about themselves, their families and their communities). In response to these real stories, those who paid for the studies declared my subjects were wrong - they did not know what was happening to them - only smart people could understand it all.

I argued back... dear client, telling people what they "SHOULD" feel, think, know or believe about their own lives was crazy. The solutions, I argued were in giving people the tools they needed to get the things "they believed" they needed done themselves. Your'e wrong said my very smart clients, only smart, educated, worldly people, like us, can solve their problems. And so, I watched my clients spend millions upon millions of dollars to solve poor people's problems.

Time and again, I watched the folks in charge allocate funds to start another organizational arm complete with a paid staff. First came the leaders (known as the board of directors) who hired executive directors, office managers, secretaries, data analysts, bookkeepers and outreach directors and volunteer coordinators. Of course the staff were experts who needed big salaries and nice benefit packages. They paid consultants for logos, legal advice and such. They paid experts to lead them through strategic planning sessions and write mission statements, goals and objectives (based on data). One board of directors paid to have an elevator installed for a suite of offices on the second floor of a building they really, really wanted. And when all of this was done, they announced they were ready to start solving poor people's problems.

You cannot imagine how hard it was to listen to these smart people talk about poor people. One thing was certain, they had never met any of the "kinds" of people they believed they could help. The do-gooders had never worked beside these kinds of people, been inside their homes, eaten in their kitchens, gone to their parties, spent holidays with them, taken them to a doctor, watched their kids or helped arrange their funerals. The do-gooders even assumed the poor used checking accounts and debit cards to pay their bills and buy groceries. The do-gooders had never even thought to wonder how poor people get their laundry done ( let alone the cost).

Eventually, I came to understand that poverty was big business, complete with fat salaries and benefit packages (which are all too often jobs for their friends and families). Most of them do it for prestige for you see, liberals love to brag about their positions on boards of directors and all the work they do to stage events to help raise money to help the poor. They never notice how much money they spend to create the image they are helping the poor. They never notice they spend years associated with these organizations and have never sat down to talk with poor people.

Instead of talking to poor people, they talk to each other about poor people. Instead of meeting in the neighborhoods where people poor live, they meet in air-conditioned office buildings near their own homes and jobs. instead of poor people, they talk about data, statistics, politics and politicians that "represent' the lives of the poor. Working on poverty makes do-gooders feel good about themselves; it relieves them of the guilt that comes with knowing they have a whole lot more than they have earned.

I think this author is on to something important - about liberals. Liberals have no idea how sanitary their relationship with the poor has become. They can tell you all about the data on the poor, but they do not have even one friend who happens to be poor. They repeat stories journalists write about the poor, but they have never been in the home of a family who lives in subsidized housing.

Suddenly, liberals are confused. They have no idea what they did wrong or why they were rejected. They cared. They worked. They donated money to charity. They served on boards of directors. They voted for liberals.

The answer repels them, frightens them and upsets them, but let's tell them the answer anyway - shall we? Dear liberals, out here in the real world, where real people are fighting the real war on poverty, you are known as "Poverty-Pimps". You make money off the struggles, sorrows and pain of the poor.

Dan posted:

'Managerial liberalism'... I cannot think for the life of me of a more apathy-inducing, static, dead-eyed reptillian form of political thought. In practical terms, it's conservatism without the cranks. I've been watching with interest from Britain, it seems to me to be what�s being presented is not, despite appearances, a tactical question. It�s not even a political choice, it�s a either more of the same in general or something else, between the possibility or a slow decline into incoherent corporate bureaucracy.

It isn't particularily surprising in hindsight that strict adherence to what increasingly seems to be little more than the sanitised face of bland focus-group triangulation towards what is now a defunct form of ideologically driven pseudo-economic gibberish has resulted in a cretin like Trump becoming the president and the deep polarization of political discourse .If your only defense against social and economic change is to trot out some truly pathetic technocratic argument then no wonder...

People want to be inspired and treated like intelligent and compassionate citizens who have something to give to the political process. Opposing the excesses of the deregulated financial capital does not equate to hating capitalism and all forms of trade. Living within a particular economic system does not disbar a person from criticising perceived problems with the system. You don't have to want to go back to a stone age barter system economy to advocate more fairly redistributive form of finance.

�The world,� Derrida wrote, �is going very badly.� That was in 1993; since then it�s continued to go very badly for the western world, and for long millennia beforehand it was going very badly too. Occasionally people like to point out that some things have improved, that people are living longer than they were a century ago, that there�s less lead in our drinking water, that fewer people are mauled by bears, as if this were anything other than the slow wearing-out of a giant machine for producing corpses.

Now is as good a time as ever for some form emancipatory politics: From the mildest Georgist reformism to proper full blooded socialism. Either way, it seems from a distance that if the Democrat Party, which contrary to American exceptionalism is not even mildly 'left wing', is to survive it needs to embrace the left in new and exciting ways and vice a versa, principled anarcho-floccinaucinihilipilification is useless when the stakes seem so high.

Whatever happens, be it the last fluttering breath of the politics of humans, or the choke of water coming out the lungs in the unsteady birth of something new(!?) change is a'cumming and the Democrats must embrace it...

*As someone from the UK it is endlessly amusing to see how the career of Louise Mensch (failed Tory wonk) has prospered. If she has somehow become the saviour of American Liberalism, it's 'effin doomed.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:05

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

I have to admit I have a perverse joy in occasionally looking up Jim Messina's anti-Trump tweets and seeing the only replies being people telling him to shut the gently caress up since he's traitorous scum. That guy shouldn't be able to walk around in public without tomatoes being hurled at him.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:20

mila kunis: Jun 10, 2011

rudatron posted:

Clinton lost to Trump. The thing that's throwing people under the bus rn is corporate centrism, not principled populism.

It's funny that some dipshit had the balls to throw in the 'electability' argument when, despite several months of the Trump administration, Hillary Clinton is more unpopular than Trump still lol: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-18/finally-a-poll-trump-will-like-clinton-even-more-unpopular

# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:22

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

It's also amusing when people throw out the "Bernie lost the Democratic primary how good could he be??" when the Democratic primary has chosen one winner in two decades and also Clinton lost it too and was then rewarded with a fantastically expensive campaign eight years later.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:26

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Avirosb posted:

Awfully quiet here about Chuck "Anti-zionism is basically the holocaust" Schumer but I guess that's a that shouldn't be opened.

I brought it up briefly some pages back, as an example of 'centrist' bipartisan crap that is the bread and butter of the current mindset, but it got lost in the FulchrDammerung.

It's actually a bit creepy. Pretty much every pol asked about First Ammendment concerns and such replies with the same canned "The US and Israel are friends. They will forever be friends" non sequitur. It's almost Hypnotoad-wrothy.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:30

Avirosb: Nov 21, 2016; Everyone makes pisstakes

Radish posted:

It's also amusing when people throw out the "Bernie lost the Democratic primary how good could he be??" when the Democratic primary has chosen one winner in two decades and also Clinton lost it too and was then rewarded with a fantastically expensive campaign eight years later.

But that doesn't answer how good he could be.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:31

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

Avirosb posted:

But that doesn't answer how good he could be.

So? Maybe he'll lose fantastically but the Democratic primary is the last thing people should be using as the barometer for winning a national election.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:32

Avirosb: Nov 21, 2016; Everyone makes pisstakes

Sephyr posted:

I brought it up briefly some pages back, as an example of 'centrist' bipartisan crap that is the bread and butter of the current mindset, but it got lost in the FulchrDammerung.

It's actually a bit creepy. Pretty much every pol asked about First Ammendment concerns and such replies with the same canned "The US and Israel are friends. They will forever be friends" non sequitur. It's almost Hypnotoad-wrothy.

Agreed. I'm as green as they come when it comes to politics and I don't know the whole history but what goes on in Ukraine and Israel doesn't seem all that different to me.

Radish posted:

So? Maybe he'll lose fantastically but the Democratic primary is the last thing people should be using as the barometer for winning a national election.

Obviously

# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:36

Kobayashi: Aug 13, 2004; by Nyc_Tattoo

call to action posted:

So it turns out the LA Review of Books has a loving awesome comment section:

These are good comments.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:36

Brony Car: May 22, 2014; by Cyrano4747

Radish posted:

So? Maybe he'll lose fantastically but the Democratic primary is the last thing people should be using as the barometer for winning a national election.

I've come around to this way of thinking.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:44

Sephyr: Aug 28, 2012

Avirosb posted:

Agreed. I'm as green as they come when it comes to politics and I don't know the whole history but what goes on in Ukraine and Israel doesn't seem all that different to me.

So, odds that the next Dem presidential candidate will be a "BDS is a felony" backer: 100% or 120%?

# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:49

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 11, 2024 06:34

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011; Can't post for 33 hours!

Ah back to the good old "Reagan lost the 76 primary to another loser, he's finished for good" argument.

# ? Jul 21, 2017 15:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The democrats are a waste

«‹›483 »