|
The Groper posted:Absolutely, but he told America to turn down the thermostat and put on a sweater, which automatically puts him leaps and bounds ahead of nearly every other politician before or since And this is why most Americans think he was a lovely president. 
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
is it ok to discuss keith ellison in this thread? cause i love him very much https://twitter.com/keithellison/status/908007114785873921
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Mozi posted:What, last November is ancient history now? I mean yea. Trump is president and the republicans control both houses and almost 3/4s of state legislatures. I'm not sure why a ghost-writen book released by some also-ran is particularly relevant. Is there some government office or political party office that she currently holds that I'm unaware of?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:A black man became president, yet somehow the deck was stacked against Hilldawg I don't particularly want to champion Hillary's extremely average campaign that relied heavily on the support beams of Look At The Other Guy, It's Donald J. Trump. However, I'd say that of the various ingredients that lead to the baking of the poo poo cake that is the current administration, missteps by the Clinton Campaign are pretty much just the spices. Comey and The Media are the flour and liquids, sexism is the eggs, Weiner is the the sugar, passing out is the yeast, and Voter Suppression/the ED is the shortening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Condiv posted:is it ok to discuss keith ellison in this thread? cause i love him very much I rate this statement as ideologically acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Condiv posted:that sucks The GOP is going to keep doubling down on this and it's going to end up driving real healthcare reform so much faster than it would have happened otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I don't particularly want to champion Hillary's extremely average campaign that relied heavily on the support beams of Look At The Other Guy, It's Donald J. Trump. However, I'd say that of the various ingredients that lead to the baking of the poo poo cake that is the current administration, missteps by the Clinton Campaign are pretty much just the spices. Comey and The Media are the flour and liquids, sexism is the eggs, Weiner is the the sugar, passing out is the yeast, and Voter Suppression/the ED is the shortening. I thought emails would be the butter
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I thought emails would be the butter Marzipan
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The truth is that she doesn't know why she lost. She's just angry and lashing out. it's not productive at all. Prester Jane posted:insofar as I know its not released in full yet, I have jsut read reviews and a few excerpts. There are a number of things publicly avilable right now that seem pretty congruent with my stance. For starters apparently Hillary thinks right now is a good time to start slinging poo poo at Sanders: You can call it poo poo slinging if you wish but it seems really unsurprising to me, in a book about why she lost the election, that Hillary would bring up all of the ongoing acrimony between her camp and Bernie's which we are still seeing in this thread at this moment, over a year later as being something unusual compared to previous primaries that damaged prospects in the general.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:I get the reason why Bernie outlaws private insurance his plan, but man is that an awfully difficult thing to ask Democratic politicians to embrace, since that carries risk of enormous backlash from the public. Who actually cares about this? Who actually obsesses over the details of their insurance plan? Maybe I'm just not rich enough or not high enough on the corporate ladder, but I've never scrutinized the long list of fine-print stuff my insurance won't cover and then said "man, my insurance is awesome and I deeply love this exact plan and want to have it forever". Changing your insurance is a big deal in the private market, because there's always gaps and the gaps aren't ever going to quite line up, but that's not a problem for a good government plan that covers everything. Who the heck, aside from CEOs and people who enjoy gambling with their financial stability or well-being, actually is all that attached to their current insurance plan? Do people quit their jobs en masse when their company changes insurance plans, providers, or conditions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:I mean yea. Trump is president and the republicans control both houses and almost 3/4s of state legislatures. I'm not sure why a ghost-writen book released by some also-ran is particularly relevant. Is there some government office or political party office that she currently holds that I'm unaware of? Every single interview or commentary I've seen about the book has the interviewer/commentator noting that this is basically historical record as the true story of the first female presidential candidate. Not saying I agree with that given how crazy some of the poo poo is in the book (and I haven't seen the supposedly timeline and fact checking Clinton put in the book which is probably less focused on facts and more on avoiding responsibility) but that's why it's got the potential to be relevant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
I think the important discussion in this thread should be why Koalas March isn't posting gifs What's makes the Trump thread so special?!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:It came out yesterday. it's unusual because usually politicians avoid attacking their own party and causing a rift during the primary obamaboys was a prime example of this happening in 2008 too, and it was never a good idea
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:For some reason I can't help but feel that there was better support for any Dem candidate in 2008 than in 2016. Maybe involving some person named Katrina? pretty sure the financial collapse had way more to do with obama's election than hurricane katrina
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I thought emails would be the butter Seems like a whole lot of butter for one cake. I haven't baked in a while though, is there usually more butter than flour and water?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
well and obama really gave people hope that he was going to change things too
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:it's unusual because usually politicians avoid attacking their own party and causing a rift during the primary
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Another thing she said is that Bernie isn't a Democrat. I mean, you can argue about whether that's true, or relevant, or whatever, but it's what she thinks and important to understanding how she acted towards him. I think Bernie said that Obama should have had primary challengers running for his second term, which is certainly unusual as well. It was a weird year. he's not, but his policies align with us well enough that it's a moot point. he also runs in the dem primaries in vermont, so it's an extremely moot point also, i agree obama should have had primary challengers running for his second term, we needed to be pushing left constantly
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
nessin posted:Every single interview or commentary I've seen about the book has the interviewer/commentator noting that this is basically historical record as the true story of the first female presidential candidate. Not saying I agree with that given how crazy some of the poo poo is in the book (and I haven't seen the supposedly timeline and fact checking Clinton put in the book which is probably less focused on facts and more on avoiding responsibility) but that's why it's got the potential to be relevant. Sure. It's historical record of the first woman candidate sounds like a great topic for a different thread! I totally get how it's relevant in that scope, just not within this threads scope. For relevance in this thread: http://www.medicareforall.org/pages/Chart_of_Americans_Support You can see the broad support for universal healthcare. "Over half" is the conservative estimate.  So when republicans don't let this get to the floor, what excuse will they use?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
nessin posted:Clinton's answer to this is because she had to defend Obama and his policies from Sander's attacks during the primaries (she even outright says she was shocked she was forced to defend a Democratic President in the Democratic Primary in some of her interviews), and that she was hampered by Sander's making unsupported promises with no implementation plan that she had to respond to but was slow to do so since she actually backed up her plans with real expectations for success. In the excellent book "Skunk Works: A personal memoir of my years at Lockheed" the author goes into some detail about the backstory of how the FA-18 Hornet came into existence that I think is very relevant to this discussion. (For those not familiar the Skunk Works is the engineering firm that produced the SR-71, the FA-117 Stealth Fighter, the U2 high altitude reconnaissance aircraft, the F-104 Starfighter, and numerous others.) At the time leadership was just starting to transition from the original founder of the project (a legendary engineer named Kelly Johnson) to the author of said book, Ben Rich. The Pentagon invited bids from a number of aerospace firms for a new multi-role fighter with some pretty detailed specifications. One of those specifications is that the new fighter needed to be single engine. Kelly Johnson thought that idea was crap because in order to carry the necessary payload/perform the necessary maneuvers the new fighter would need two engines. So over the objections of Ben Rich and the junior staff Kelly ordered them to draw up a schematic for the twin-engine fighter he knew the Pentagon needed instead of the single-engine one it was asking for. All the other competitors submitted single engine designs. The Skunk Works was out in the first round. The company that won the design competition for the FA-18 rather quickly scrapped their original design once they had won and wound up producing a twin-engine fighter that was very very similar to what Kelly had ordered his team to design. Being an administrator who knows what will actually address the issue at hand is a very different skill from being able to cajole people into cooperating in the effort to implement the plan. Prester Jane fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Seems like a whole lot of butter for one cake. I haven't baked in a while though, is there usually more butter than flour and water? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Another thing she said is that Bernie isn't a Democrat. I mean, you can argue about whether that's true, or relevant, or whatever, but it's what she thinks and important to understanding how she acted towards him. I think Bernie said that Obama should have had primary challengers running for his second term, which is certainly unusual as well - to attack the popular sitting president of the party that you're running for the nomination of. It was a weird year. I think it speaks to the fact that she is more interested in the project of the Democratic Party and not necessarily the ideological stances or leftist policy goals lots of voters have. "Bernie had progressive policies and we like progressive policies." "But he's not a Democrat!" "So what, we like progressive policies." This seems to be a part of the meritocratic mass psychosis that is gripping the party establishment. They can't get over the fact that the President is a brute and an oaf. "That's not how politics works!"
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I don't particularly want to champion Hillary's extremely average campaign that relied heavily on the support beams of Look At The Other Guy, It's Donald J. Trump. However, I'd say that of the various ingredients that lead to the baking of the poo poo cake that is the current administration, missteps by the Clinton Campaign are pretty much just the spices. Comey and The Media are the flour and liquids, sexism is the eggs, Weiner is the the sugar, passing out is the yeast, and Voter Suppression/the ED is the shortening. I rate this recipe 3/10. No Benjamin Ghazi.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
SulphagneSocialist posted:I think it speaks to the fact that she is more interested in the project of the Democratic Party and not necessarily the ideological stances or leftist policy goals lots of voters have. Bernie turned down joining the party for 30+ years. He then joined the party, ran for leadership on a platform of making GBS threads on the party, lost then left the party. Is it really surprised that the party is a bit... standoffish? Look at the actions, he is that guy from any organization. He says hes a super badass, joins the group, poo poo all over it then quits. When Sanders left the party after 2016 he just proved all of his critics correct. He only wanted to take from the party, not give anything back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
BetterToRuleInHell posted:I think the important discussion in this thread should be why Koalas March isn't posting gifs I was phoneposting while running errands!! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I don't particularly want to champion Hillary's extremely average campaign that relied heavily on the support beams of Look At The Other Guy, It's Donald J. Trump. However, I'd say that of the various ingredients that lead to the baking of the poo poo cake that is the current administration, missteps by the Clinton Campaign are pretty much just the spices. Comey and The Media are the flour and liquids, sexism is the eggs, Weiner is the the sugar, passing out is the yeast, and Voter Suppression/the ED is the shortening. What about the ongoing decline of the Democratic Party? Since 2009, Congressional Dems have taken heavy losses in midterm elections and only slight gains in presidential election years. The Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008 - spurred largely Bush's unpopularity and Obama's charisma were the first time they'd controlled both houses of Congress since 1994. The context of the presidential election goes well beyond just Hillary Clinton - it's just another milestone in the slow decline of the Democratic Party under the stewardship of the centrist movement that moved into party leadership in the late 80s and early 90s.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Xae posted:Bernie turned down joining the party for 30+ years. He then joined the party, ran for leadership on a platform of making GBS threads on the party, lost then left the party. lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Prester Jane posted:The company that won the design competition for the FA-18 rather quickly scrapped their original design once they had won and wound up producing a twin-engine fighter that was very very similar to what Kelly had ordered his team to design. Being an administrator who knows what will actually address the issue at hand is a very different skill from being able to cajole people into cooperating in the effort to implement the plan. Consulting 101: Get the contract first, then tell the client that their plan is bad.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
Hillary deserved to lose when she looked at how Sanders won in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota - two states that she lost in the general with a very slim win in the third - and then decided to completely ignore why she lost those states in the primary and then completely ignore them again in the general campaign. For someone who is supposed to be one of the best politicians in the country, that's a grievous oversight and Michigan, if anything, should have been a 5 Alarm wakeup call for her to fix her stupid economic platform. Bernie's win in Michigan was astounding, IIRC Clinton had a 99.9% chance of victory and she got Trump'd in the primary when Sanders stole the state out from under her. I still voted for her in the general because gently caress Trump in every conceivable way, but she really did run an abjectly lovely campaign on the economic issues.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
Xae posted:Bernie turned down joining the party for 30+ years. He then joined the party, ran for leadership on a platform of making GBS threads on the party, lost then left the party. Ah yes the 2016 Dem platform, and today's Medicare-for-All bill, are most definitely Sanders taking from the party. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Another thing she said is that Bernie isn't a Democrat. I mean, you can argue about whether that's true, or relevant, or whatever, but it's what she thinks and important to understanding how she acted towards him. To the extent that understanding her reactions remains important, sure. It was probably worthwhile for her to write a book like this, in the same sense that it was worthwhile for the Republicans to have done a post-mortem after Obama. But she shouldn't have written it -- the Democratic party should have commissioned it independently. The very fact that she lost is going to cloud her vision in analyzing the problem of why she lost, plus the fact that she lost demonstrates she had problems discerning why she was losing and what to do about it. Said another way, if she's so smart, why isn't she President? She was always a deeply flawed candidate and one of her many flaws was her inability to realize that she was a flawed candidate, that her political instincts were both insufficient and outdated, and that the party would have stood a greater chance of furthering progressive policy if she had not run and had instead allowed an open field of challengers to develop. Ok, she didn't get that then, neither did most other Democrats, ok, water under the bridge. But she should realize it now. There is a reason failed candidates -- Gore, Carter etc. -- usually take a year or three out of public life before coming back, and even then take on specific, limited policy goals (global warming, habitat for humanity). She needs to clear the field. Doing a book tour and talk show circuit now is just re-litigating old battles and opening old wounds. It's not helping build the party, it's not helping build the progressive movement, it's not furthering progressive policy. Instead it's putting herself front and center again when she needs to be stepping back so that other candidates can step forward. Every talk show appearance she makes is taking visibility away from Harris, Warren, Bernie, Franken, Patrick, etc. Main Paineframe posted:What about the ongoing decline of the Democratic Party? Since 2009, Congressional Dems have taken heavy losses in midterm elections and only slight gains in presidential election years. The Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008 - spurred largely Bush's unpopularity and Obama's charisma were the first time they'd controlled both houses of Congress since 1994. The context of the presidential election goes well beyond just Hillary Clinton - it's just another milestone in the slow decline of the Democratic Party under the stewardship of the centrist movement that moved into party leadership in the late 80s and early 90s. This too. It's really telling that Hillary's loyalties are to the Democratic Party, not the progressive movement. The Democratic Party is one of the most toxic major brands in the country right now. It's an institution in desperate need of reform, not one that deserves loyalty on its own merits. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Sep 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
HonorableTB posted:IIRC Clinton had a 99.9% chance of victory You remember incorrectly. It was more like 70-80%
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Condiv posted:he's not, but his policies align with us well enough that it's a moot point. he also runs in the dem primaries in vermont, so it's an extremely moot point Do you understand that there could be a double standard perceived between this statement and this other one?: Condiv posted:it's unusual because usually politicians avoid attacking their own party and causing a rift during the primary It's OK to "push left constantly" and go after your party's sitting president, but attacking your own party during the primary is "unusual" and "never a good idea"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
i mean if y'all are completely uninterested in having bernie help save yourselves i'm more than happy to have him join the DSA
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Xae posted:Bernie turned down joining the party for 30+ years. He then joined the party, ran for leadership on a platform of making GBS threads on the party, lost then left the party. Maybe the party isn't the most important part of politics, in fact the party is an unfortunate side-effect of our voting system and has no value on its own. The party should be poo poo all over the unelected leaders of the party poo poo all over as well as long as they do not push for polices that help the people.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What about the ongoing decline of the Democratic Party? Since 2009, Congressional Dems have taken heavy losses in midterm elections and only slight gains in presidential election years. The Democratic waves of 2006 and 2008 - spurred largely Bush's unpopularity and Obama's charisma were the first time they'd controlled both houses of Congress since 1994. The context of the presidential election goes well beyond just Hillary Clinton - it's just another milestone in the slow decline of the Democratic Party under the stewardship of the centrist movement that moved into party leadership in the late 80s and early 90s. That has more to do with the down ballot results of 2016 than the top of the ticket. The party of the President tends to do poorly in midterms and Obama was a super scary black man, so the effect was multiplied as voters ran to the polls while totally not racistly screaming about the 14 words. This impacted the the path for new blood to rise in the party, but didn't really effect the 2016 Presidential part of the race outside the lingering desire to undo all the scary black things Obama did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
berserker posted:You remember incorrectly. It was more like 70-80% I was going off of the data listed here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-the-stunning-bernie-sanders-win-in-michigan-means/ The polling from 538 gave Clinton a higher than 99% chance of winning - is there data that suggests it was 70-80% instead?
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:To the extent that understanding her reactions remains important, sure. I agree with all this. This is no longer about Hillary Clinton, nor should it be. It's about embracing reality. Here's a fine way to test the value of the book FROM her, does it in any way, address white nationalism? Honestly asking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Eletriarnation posted:Do you understand that there could be a double standard perceived between this statement and this other one?: Pretty sure that's a comparison of Hillarys own statement followed by an action showing it as obviously hypocritical.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:09 |
|
|
Lol at dems getting angry about Medicare for all purity tests then apply purity tests to Bernie and his supporters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2017 20:54
|
|
