|
business hammocks posted:How could the press come out against Trump any harder than what they're already doing? He said they were the enemy of the American people in January. This is just the next move. Journalists have been a bit more combative in certain situations due to the hostility of the administration, but I don't believe for a second they've even got the claws out for real. They could go after Trump with a bit more bite imo. e. dog tax, enjoy my pup doing her favorite thing. 
Red Baron fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Aug 4, 2017 |
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Lote posted:PSLF looks to be going down the drain too. DoE is trying to delay forgiving the first wave of loans. This is not going to end well. Also it's a good way to never have anyone aged 18-35 ever vote republican. Kind of hard for people that end up in debtor's prison to vote. EDIT: Beaten.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:Is there an article yet about what specifically they plan to do? A Washington Examiner article ended with: "After his prepared remarks, Sessions ignored questions on if this meant the Justice Department will jail journalists." And that's all they NEED to do right now. Imply they will jail journalists who refuse to reveal sources, to a) deter journalists from using the sources, and b) deter sources from speaking to journalists since the sources figure the journalists will cave to the DOJ after some jail time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:White millennials voted for Trump. white voters 18-29 voted for hillary, though with a stupidly high number of jill stein voters because young people are idiots it's the 30-44 band of white people that very narrowly voted for trump, then 45-above that went heavily for trump
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:to be clear, because my statement was not at all, it's the condiv-level idiot brokebrains who voted for jill stein, not the vast majority of bernie people, i realize looking at that post it says the exact opposite please be fair Condiv didn't vote for Jill Stein, he voted for Gloria La Riva
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:49
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/tmzanthony/status/893471889485512704 Lol cool
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Mr. Crow posted:Don't look up, you might notice the sky falling. We had a guy carry a rifle into a pizza shop and threaten the employees, demanding that they release the child sex slaves locked in the basement of a building that doesn't have a basement. All based upon some bullshit internet conspiracy theory crap. If Trump singled out a reporter, called him or her "an enemy of the people" and made up some poo poo about how they're linked with terrorism, do you think it's that far of a stretch for some lunatic to go after the reporter?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This is a really weak argument, given how popular Sanders is now, and I think you know that. evilweasel posted:millennials are stupidly, overwhelmingly, incredibly pro-democratic and anti-republican, to a degree essentially unmatched in american history: getting them to vote is absolutely critical to retaking the country and if done successfully republicans don't have a hope Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Why do you think immigrant advocacy groups have different views of Obama and Trump if their deportation rates were functionally similar? Trump is a literal retard nazi who's campaigned was filled with white nationalist rhetoric and his immigration policy seems to have shifted to destroying families because he's an inhuman monster that will be one of the ugliest stains in American history voted in by dumbest shitheads the fine city of Phoenix, Arizona could produce. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
That's a happy looking car
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
Red Baron posted:Journalists have been a bit more combative in certain situations due to the hostility of the administration, but I don't believe for a second they've even got the claws out for real. They could go after Trump with a bit more bite imo. What could you imagine that's not already happening? The biggest and really only thing is that they abandoned the usual equivocation and "underdog rises" narrative that they'd usually default to in reporting on him ("some say Trump is bad, but the job numbers tell an unnoticed story;" "today is the day Trump became president"). The press will always mostly be weak and eager to normalize Trump if they get the smallest opening. And they can't really go partisan ala fox news because they limit themselves to the truth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
What a beautiful analogy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Caitlyn Jenner is to the trans community as Milo Yiannopoulos is to the gay community. They're both terrible people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:sanders supporters have never really reckoned with the fact (a) he lost the primary, and it was not close: he had no hope of success for the second half and was losing by much more than Hillary was losing when obama had effectively locked up the nomination I dunno, I think a lot of us have come to terms with this. Clinton won the primary for very comprehensible reasons, including greater name recognition, better connections within the party, better outreach to minority voters, and, you know, an intention from the beginning to actually run a campaign that wins the primaries. Sanders wasn't expecting to win the primary, at least from the get-go; everyone knows that. quote:and (b) he is significantly more popular than clinton because republicans supported him as an anti-clinton and to try to split the democratic base, but if he ran he would immediately lose that support I think that's a pretty reductive way of looking at Sanders' enduring popularity. The appeal of a left-populist platform to working class voters almost certainly plays a larger role. The lesson here isn't that Sanders himself should be the nominee in 2020, or anything of the sort. It's that economic populism, combined with social justice, is a platform that wins.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
BlueberryCanary posted:Caitlyn Jenner is to the trans community as Milo Yiannopoulos is to the gay community. Yeah, I and every other trans person I know cannot stand her. She's awful and I am totally unsurprised by her continued awfulness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Julian Assange is like getting to watch a person who has already made all the mistakes that matter and is trapped as a tool of machinations outside of his control. He's used conspicuously to forward nationalist blackmail and further the interests of specific nations. He's well aware, and he's desperate, and he will continue to do their bidding until he essentially runs out of any utility. It's hard to pity him, though. His moral compass only ever pointed in correct directions by accident.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
BlueberryCanary posted:Caitlyn Jenner is to the trans community as Milo Yiannopoulos is to the gay community. I blame the Kardashians. (yes, I know they're Dems; they just make people in their orbit terrible in all sorts of ways)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This is a really weak argument, given how popular Sanders is now, and I think you know that. Sanders has always been popular, among demographics that don't vote, which is how elections are decided. androo posted:"Democratic primary voters" and primary voters in general is not a great thing to measure by when comparing to actual national elections. Except that we're measuring the Democratic base in that comment chain. Mr. Crow posted:Your criminal lost, get over it. Bernie lost, get over it. Sneakster posted:Clinton being within MoE with Trump since the spring while Bernie was crushing Trump by double digits but struggling as obscure figure in an uphill battle in a messy primary means by the associative law that if Bernie is most popular now, Clinton is even more popular cause she won the primary, which would mean she's president, and didn't pathetically fail to beat a literal retard nazi that she's current polling worse than. It's air tight logic. "Most popular" in polls, which aren't actual voting, among populations that don't vote. Berniebros couldn't even get him elected in a primary, didn't turn out for the election, and now think they're entitled to the DNC bowing down to their absolute power to so far do nothing of electoral consequence. They didn't even turn out to vote for enough down-ticket candidates to retake the Senate. evilweasel posted:millennials are stupidly, overwhelmingly, incredibly pro-democratic and anti-republican, to a degree essentially unmatched in american history: getting them to vote is absolutely critical to retaking the country and if done successfully republicans don't have a hope The fact that not all millennials are Berniebros is exactly the issue, of course. Millenials don't vote, and Berniebros seem to even less willing to vote without adherence to policy that will damage the DNC among other demographics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Ripoff posted:We had a guy carry a rifle into a pizza shop and threaten the employees, demanding that they release the child sex slaves locked in the basement of a building that doesn't have a basement. All based upon some bullshit internet conspiracy theory crap. If Trump singled out a reporter, called him or her "an enemy of the people" and made up some poo poo about how they're linked with terrorism, do you think it's that far of a stretch for some lunatic to go after the reporter? Nice unrelated anecdote. Yes it's that far off a stretch to say all Republicans will start executing reporters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think that's a pretty reductive way at looking at Sanders' enduring popularity. The appeal of a left-populist platform to working class voters almost certainly plays a larger role. The lesson here isn't that Sanders himself should be the nominee in 2020, or anything of the sort. It's that economic populism, combined with social justice, is a platform that wins. sanders being popular enough to incite the fervent support he did in the primary is very meaningful - he effectively tapped into the sort of excitement that lifted Obama to the white house, and that Clinton clearly lacked in 2008 and 2016. given how heavily young voters lean D, but also how heavily they fail to vote, it's important to tap into that excitement. if Kerry had managed to get Obama-level youth turnout he'd have been President. Sanders may have been able to replicate it. Clinton couldn't. i just view his national popularity as being something to take with a large grain of salt, though. everyone's much more popular before they get the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:sanders supporters have never really reckoned with the fact (a) he lost the primary, and it was not close: he had no hope of success for the second half and was losing by much more than Hillary was losing when obama had effectively locked up the nomination and (b) he is significantly more popular than clinton because republicans supported him as an anti-clinton and to try to split the democratic base, but if he ran he would immediately lose that support Yes he still lost but I didn't think he tracked that far behind Obama in '08.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I dunno, I think a lot of us have come to terms with this. Clinton won the primary for very comprehensible reasons, including greater name recognition, better connections within the party, better outreach to minority voters, and, you know, an intention from the beginning to actually run a campaign that wins the primaries. Sanders wasn't expecting to win the primary, at least from the get-go; everyone knows that. i am extremely confident that evilweasel can explain, at length, why asking the democratic party to act on behalf of its constituents is morally suspect behavior
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:Does this look as stark with super delegates taken out of the equation? Absolutely: that analysis is about pledged delegates, not including superdelegates. Bernie in 2016 underperformed Clinton in 2008 with regard to pledged delegates. edit: Obama won in 2008 by a little over 60 pledged delegates. Clinton won in 2016 by about 350. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Aug 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
I was all in for Bernie and would have far preferred him over Clinton yet still voted for her in the general. I'm just registered as an Independent, so I couldn't have voted for Bernie in the primary. I still vote (or have voted) for Democrats over Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
*polling worse than criminal administration, even after buyer's remorse and even in spite of having highest popularity with women and minorities despite sexist and racist insinuations that their interests don't matter intensifies*
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:Does this look as stark with super delegates taken out of the equation? Obviously Obama out-performed Bernie as the underdog, but he overtook HRC because he got enough of the regular delegates to start getting many of the super delegates to act as a catalyst and shutter over to his side. Bernie fell short of that but because he didn't get the SDs it makes his loss look even more pronounced. Plus an argument can be made that the dem infrastructure had a stronger resistance to bernie than obama.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:His loss is more pronounced if you look at the popular vote totals. Sanders lost by nearly 4 million votes., or about 25% of the popular vote. Yea, no poo poo, his opponent had the last name Clinton. You can't buy that level of name recognition.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
enraged_camel posted:i preferred it when we were talking about whether montana has mountains Not mountains, mountain. Just the one. A huge mountain. The Gianforte of mountains. bodyslamming all the other mountains into mere hills. It's not called Montanas.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:03
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah, the gerrymander was broader and more effective But locking it in doesn't exist anymore. Republicans uncorked the "redistricting whenever the gently caress we feel like it" genie and have no intention of letting it be put back in the bottle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:04
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Absolutely: that analysis is about pledged delegates, not including superdelegates. Bernie in 2016 underperformed Clinton in 2008 with regard to pledged delegates. Crows Turn Off posted:His loss is more pronounced if you look at the popular vote totals. Sanders lost by nearly 4 million votes, or about 25% of the popular vote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
business hammocks posted:What could you imagine that's not already happening? The biggest and really only thing is that they abandoned the usual equivocation and "underdog rises" narrative that they'd usually default to in reporting on him ("some say Trump is bad, but the job numbers tell an unnoticed story;" "today is the day Trump became president"). The truth is that our sitting president is an idiot who embarasses us on a daily, if not hourly, basis. They could report it in a manner closer to just openly calling him out on all of his bullshit, but so far they've been pointed but not enough for him to care. (If such a thing is even possible.) Basically, I feel as though they could be a bit harsher in their language and in more mainstream media (like on TV, not just in print) since another WaPo article about the next stupid thing he does is just preaching to the choir. To really steer the conversation they need to, in my opinion, fight a little dirtier. Instead of articles or airtime being derisive of his obvious missteps they should just run "Trump: The New Worst President. I know it. You know it. Everyone knows it." or stories both true but still just obvious taunts. They should still continue to cover the remaining news as they have, but when it comes to him why even have the pretense? It's not like he'll sway more people to distrust the media, and we're not going to effectively reach his base without speaking to them on that kind of level. The part of America that already dislikes Trump will be happy to see the news putting their foot down, shaking that ineffectual liberal stereotype they are shackled with so often. The other part of America that still likes Trump will either ignore this move (par for the course) or they'll hear a message that sounds like what Trump pumps out constantly but against him. I think maybe they'll listen to that more than they will anything else.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:sanders being popular enough to incite the fervent support he did in the primary is very meaningful - he effectively tapped into the sort of excitement that lifted Obama to the white house, and that Clinton clearly lacked in 2008 and 2016. given how heavily young voters lean D, but also how heavily they fail to vote, it's important to tap into that excitement. if Kerry had managed to get Obama-level youth turnout he'd have been President. Sanders may have been able to replicate it. Clinton couldn't. Eh, there's lots of people, especially young people that didn't vote last election that would have if there was a candidate that represented their interests. It's not really about some nebulous 'excitement' factor, it's about having a candidate up there that actually represents you. When that fell through for a lot of young people when Hillary won the nomination, there were definitely a lot of jaded rear end young folk around where I was living in DC at the time who didn't really want to vote after that. And yeah it's dumb as poo poo not to vote just to counter someone like DT, but I definitely can relate to the _feeling_ of jadedness
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Shifty Pony posted:But locking it in doesn't exist anymore. Republicans uncorked the "redistricting whenever the gently caress we feel like it" genie and have no intention of letting it be put back in the bottle. They only did that once, between 2000 and 2010, and it wasn't really to touch up an existing gerrymander. It was because Texas was operating under a (fair) judicially imposed map and they wanted to get a gerrymandered map in. But to the best of my knowledge no state has proposed redoing a gerrymander mid-decade besides that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Dick Trauma posted:I believe the children are our future. Teach them well and let them lead the way. Boy talk about not practicing what you preach Whitney.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:White millennials voted for Trump. Not really. There is an interesting divergence here that can be demonstrated thus. this is the post election survey https://decisiondeskhq.com/data-dives/how-the-2016-vote-broke-down-by-race-gender-and-age/ This is the results of the exit polls http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls Key point, among Whites 18-29 in the Survey 51.8% claimed to have voted for Clinton (39.5 Trump, 8.7% Other) in the Exit poll, it was 43% Clinton (47% Trump 10, Other/Did not Answer) The variable here is the election had a about a 60% turnout while Survey respondents claimed a roughly 98% turnout. Given demographic disparities the biggest problem there is white millennials didn't vote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I blame the Kardashians. (yes, I know they're Dems; they just make people in their orbit terrible in all sorts of ways) I think it's the wealth that causes the complete lack of empathy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:07
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:Ok, thanks folks. I had a misconception about that, probably from got it from some corner of lefty twitter that was burnt after the primary was a done deal last year. As close as people would like Sanders-Clinton to be, Clinton still won by like 10% for most metrics. Clinton and Obama had about a 1% difference, and the Florida/Michigan primary ratfuckery didn't really help matters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Xombie posted:The fact that not all millennials are Berniebros is exactly the issue, of course. Millenials don't vote, and Berniebros seem to even less willing to vote without adherence to policy that will damage the DNC among other demographics. Xombie posted:damage the DNC among other demographics. This TV spectacle is rotting our brains and the unwillingness to confront reality is going to destroy the DNC while we're addicted to this reality TV nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Why are we talking about the election again? The DNC fielded a candidate so unlikeable she couldn't win against Donald loving Trump, a by then admitted sexual predator. The DNC is incompetence at Trump administration levels and Trump is President, moving on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Eh, there's lots of people, especially young people that didn't vote last election that would have if there was a candidate that represented their interests. It's not really about some nebulous 'excitement' factor, it's about having a candidate up there that actually represents you. When that fell through for a lot of young people when Hillary won the nomination, there were definitely a lot of jaded rear end young folk around where I was living in DC at the time who didn't really want to vote after that. I think that a candidate who represents you more usually leads to more excitement, but not always. Obama was charismatic as all loving hell and got that excitement even though on many issues his position was sort of nebulous compared to Clinton's and where there was one, it tended not to be the strongly leftist position that people who were pumped about Obama might have favored. If you swapped Obama and Clinton's positions in 2008 you weren't going to swap the excitement.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2017 17:10
|
|