|
quote:Were you to draw a Venn diagram of the three groups whose interaction I have tried to describe in this book—Democrats, meritocrats, and plutocrats—the space where they intersect would be an island seven miles off the coast of Massachusetts called Martha’s Vineyard. Seriously i never gave it a thought until Listen Liberal's conclusion spelled out that Martha's Vineyard is basically the Bad Dem tree house.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
So since the TV news media don't seem to want to cover it all that much, TYT Politics have a series of videos covering the Donna Brazile article out and breaking it down for their audience: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-5lriHKTO8 One for the money laundering and financial side (which TYT actually also covered a year ago): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCNrXomzv5U And one for the coverage this is getting from MSM, and the downplaying they're doing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqsUEpFAbgU Nomiki Konst will be doing another video later breaking down more details on this with thread "favourite" Tulsi Gabbard. Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I'm sure there's shitloads of conservative Alaskans that love cashing that check they get from the government every year. And lord knows people of both parties across the nation love the mortgage deduction.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:If you're going to win anyway, why cheat? I mean, it's pointless and makes you look desperate. Why leave anything to chance? HRC thought that she was going to walk her way to the nomination in 2008 and some unknown half-black guy came out of the blue and slowly took it away from her. Just because my odds are good does not mean I am not going to foresake any opportunity to make them better. This does make me more sympathetic to Sanders supporters who have an axe to grind with the party. The DNC would be best off dissolving and reforming under a new name with a stricter, more transparent set of procedural guidelines. It is ridiculous that the party could let itself get so tied to one particular member like that (and especially one with as bad a track record of choosing people to trust as the Clintons). Kokoro Wish posted:So since the TV news media don't seem to want to cover it all that much, TYT Politics have a series of videos covering the Donna Brazile article out and breaking it down for their audience: It looks like it came up on CNN, though?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
N00ba the Hutt posted:Isn't this basically the notion that "it's not that our policies are wrong, it's that the messaging isn't right", though? We (rightfully) mock that when it comes to the issues Republicans have with minority voters No, because all of the policies are wrong too. We need way more radical reform than the Very Serious Minds in the political machine are willing to accept as possible. I think you could sell America on a message of "Hey, we're the best loving country in the world, shouldn't our people have the best healthcare, the best education, the best taken care of labor force?" I think leftists need to find a way to tie in our message to that spirit of longing for a better America, because it's a powerful message. WampaLord fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Nov 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:25
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:So since the TV news media don't seem to want to cover it all that much, TYT Politics have a series of videos covering the Donna Brazile article out and breaking it down for their audience: Jake Tapper did cover it on CNN and brought it up with Elizabeth Warren, at least. https://twitter.com/CNN/status/926202741034246149
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/InternetHippo/status/926203674728325120 dems lionizing reagan example #3141
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:One for the money laundering and financial side (which TYT actually also covered a year ago): When we say "money laundering," a phrase I've seen often in relation to this story, are we actually asserting they were taking illegal money and hiding that, or just money from people we don't like? This is an honest question, usually I only see money laundering come up in relation to organized crime. N00ba the Hutt posted:We (rightfully) mock that when it comes to the issues Republicans have with minority voters. "Better messaging" isn't going to help you sell the Klan to black people, but it will probably help you sell socialism to white people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:"Better messaging" isn't going to help you sell the Klan to black people, but it will probably help you sell socialism to white people. I agree with this, to a point. I do worry that sometimes we end up in here arguing over what color to make the walls of the universal basic income office when the rest of the country is still trying to decide if it’s okay to put the homeless into wood chippers. Put it this way: do you think Biden would have beaten Trump? If so, Clinton’s policies weren’t the issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
N00ba the Hutt posted:I agree with this, to a point. I do worry that sometimes we end up in here arguing over what color to make the walls of the universal basic income office when the rest of the country is still trying to decide if it’s okay to put the homeless into wood chippers. Nah I don't think Biden would've won honestly, he's got a lot of skeletons in his closet and if he'd run he wouldn't have brought his A game because of his son dying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
N00ba the Hutt posted:Isn't this basically the notion that "it's not that our policies are wrong, it's that the messaging isn't right", though? We (rightfully) mock that when it comes to the issues Republicans have with minority voters. I'm honestly just not convinced that running leftist candidates is akin to mashing a "win election" button. There is a lot of ingrained right-wing ideology when it comes to the average American's worldview, and I don't know how easily that can be changed. Look at the polling numbers for things like universal healthcare - it's a thing that should be a slam-dunk, basic human right, and we barely get a plurality supporting it. I just don't see the evidence for the massive leftist groundswell of voters that seems to often be taken for granted on this board. Check the popularity of Republican governors in northeastern states
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
N00ba the Hutt posted:I agree with this, to a point. I do worry that sometimes we end up in here arguing over what color to make the walls of the universal basic income office when the rest of the country is still trying to decide if it’s okay to put the homeless into wood chippers. The way I see it, this isn't a meaningful question because Clinton lost by such razor-thin margins that any number of things could have pushed her (or a different politician in her place) over the edge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:54
|
|
|
Biden might have pulled it out, but it would have been still close because honestly, I think Biden is actually neither a good candidate or politician. That said, theoretically Hillary meeting Trump should have been a slam dunk (does anyone disagree?).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Why leave anything to chance? HRC thought that she was going to walk her way to the nomination in 2008 and some unknown half-black guy came out of the blue and slowly took it away from her. Too bad she didn't do the same thing for the general, just buy up the national debt to influence the election. Brony Car posted:This does make me more sympathetic to Sanders supporters who have an axe to grind with the party. The DNC would be best off dissolving and reforming under a new name with a stricter, more transparent set of procedural guidelines. It is ridiculous that the party could let itself get so tied to one particular member like that (and especially one with as bad a track record of choosing people to trust as the Clintons).
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
so, in the wake of the revelations that hillary rigged the primaries, is there anyone who still believes megadonors weren't buying access and influence?
Condiv fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Nov 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:01
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:I've always had a fascination with the idea that every elected official should have a body-cam and their own C-SPAN channel. Like, if you want to be trusted with representing people, be an open book and let them judge. This would mostly just be video of them sitting in the Congressional chamber playing on their phone and not paying attention, it would be a waste of time and confuses real transparency for circus acts. We don't need to make congresspeople into streamers, we need access to money trails and records, documentation, that type of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Biden might have pulled it out, but it would have been still close because honestly, I think Biden is actually neither a good candidate or politician. My feelings have been changing about this election. At the time, I thought it should have been a slam dunk, but I've found that: (1) Americans love a rebellious outsider narrative; (2) Americans don't appreciate leadership being tricky; and (3) the Clintons have, by their own actions and by the distortions of others, are viewed by people of all ideological stripes as dishonest, political survivors. HRC was a candidate of unique strengths that could have led to some cool policies, but she also had very unique and major flaws. It had been so long since the 90s that people like me forgot the deep, almost-pheromone level dislike she could inspire and that was the best thing that could have happened for Trump. It's easier said than done, but the Democrats really need to nominate someone new and more natural in front of the camera and in front of audiences. It means more than any kind of position whether we like it or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:If you're going to win anyway, why cheat?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Condiv posted:https://twitter.com/InternetHippo/status/926203674728325120 They're trying to point out the hypocrisy that even St Reagan was against this poo poo. Spoiler alert, republican voters don't care anymore. They've deified Reagan to a myth and the reality doesn't matter anymore. It's like a less extreme case of what happened w/MLK.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:It's easier said than done, but the Democrats really need to nominate someone new and more natural in front of the camera and in front of audiences. It means more than any kind of position whether we like it or not. Boy, if only we asked the most popular politician in America what we should be doing... If only...
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
RevKrule posted:They're trying to point out the hypocrisy that even St Reagan was against this poo poo. Spoiler alert, republican voters don't care anymore. They've deified Reagan to a myth and the reality doesn't matter anymore. It's like a less extreme case of what happened w/MLK. it's dumb cause reagan was full of poo poo and they know it, so pretending he wasn't in fact lionizes him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:12
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Boy, if only we asked the most popular politician in America what we should be doing... Are you talking about the Bernie? Because the poll I looked at that said that seemed pretty dubious to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:My feelings have been changing about this election. At the time, I thought it should have been a slam dunk, but I've found that: (1) Americans love a rebellious outsider narrative; (2) Americans don't appreciate leadership being tricky; and (3) the Clintons have, by their own actions and by the distortions of others, are viewed by people of all ideological stripes as dishonest, political survivors. Hillary had some headwaters against her, but at the same time, at least on paper she had all the control and money you could have before an election; Hell, it seems she pretty much controlled the DNC since at least August 2015. Also, in the end she did win the popular vote and lost the election only by a couple points in a handful of states. The interesting part is how much she both squander her advantages and refused to acknowledge her vulnerabilities. Biden had is own issues as well, and while he is more likable, he is quite flawed as well. In the end, there are probably about 50-60 things that could have happened and change the outcome (part of that is policy), but the remarkable thing is they didn't and it wasn't bad luck.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:16
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:It will be but I wouldn't start planning your celebration party yet, as I don't think "the Clinton wing is going to be cleared out of the party," as it were. I think we'll see a lot of staffers and consultants get moved out and more people loyal to Obama take over, but this doesn't mark the beginning of the rule of Bernie in the DNC or anything. To wit: Hillary's Clinton is still, to this day, more popular than Bernie Sanders among democrats.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:When we say "money laundering," a phrase I've seen often in relation to this story, are we actually asserting they were taking illegal money and hiding that, or just money from people we don't like? This is an honest question, usually I only see money laundering come up in relation to organized crime. Since I mentioned the TYT coverage of it from a year ago, here we go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwDJmCD6iDA If you don't want to watch that (I do understand that), here's the gist. The Hillary Victory Fund was set up to launder money for the Clinton campaign. It allowed them, after doing deals with 33 states, to bypass the campaign funding laws that limits the amounts of individual donors. The legal limit is, I think $10k. Instead of donating a single $10k contribution to the campaign or the DNC, they give that maximum amount to the 33 state parties, $10k each state. The money donated to the state parties is then automatically given to the DNC and the Victory Fund. This is legal. However, much like campaign contributions from corporations and Super PACs are legalized bribery, this is legalized money laundering. Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Nov 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:18
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:When we say "money laundering," a phrase I've seen often in relation to this story, are we actually asserting they were taking illegal money and hiding that, or just money from people we don't like? This is an honest question, usually I only see money laundering come up in relation to organized crime. In classless American society, sinecure positions are an anathema. They happen in other places like old Europe, banana republic and other tin pot dictatorships. So we call it money.laindering when we see it happening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:The Hillary Victory Fund was set up to launder money for the Clinton campaign. It allowed them, after doing deals with 33 states, to bypass the campaign funding laws that limits the amounts of individual donors. The money is donated to the state parties that then automatically give almost all the money to the Victory Fund. This is legal. However, much like campaign contributions from corporations and Super PACs are legalized bribery, this is legalized money laundering. Thank you for the explanation, I can't watch your video right now.  I see, that's what I was expecting. I just wanted to clarify whether or not there were actual accusations of legal wrongdoing, or of it was more of the "this is scummy and bad" variety.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
The victory fund loophole is explicitly legal and the DNC set up exactly the same apparatus for Bernie, as Brazile notes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Are you talking about the Bernie? Because the poll I looked at that said that seemed pretty dubious to me. Remember that Bernie only became the politician with the highest favorables in the country because they stopped polling on Kasich after the election. His were also high for pretty much the same reason: no one on either side attacking him, and even people firmly on the opposing side of the aisle lionizing him as a "so much better than the one you picked" wedge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Killer robot posted:Remember that Bernie only became the politician with the highest favorables in the country because they stopped polling on Kasich after the election. His were also high for pretty much the same reason: no one on either side attacking him, and even people firmly on the opposing side of the aisle lionizing him as a "so much better than the one you picked" wedge. And Hillary Clinton has supposedly been the most admired woman in America multiple times. https://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-rated-admired-woman-twenty-times/ It changes when she runs for something, though...
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:To wit: Hillary's Clinton is still, to this day, more popular than Bernie Sanders among democrats. Got a link for that? Because it wasn't even true during a good chunk of the primary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
It's also not true now according to the only poll I've found that still asks approval/disapproval of Clinton. This is the latest one: http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/HCAPS-October_Topline-Memo_with-banners_Registered-Voters_Current-Events.pdf and according to page 31 Sanders has higher approvals than Hillary among literally every demographic/political/party affiliation subgroup they broke out, including "liberals," "moderates," "Democrats," and "Hillary Clinton voters" Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Nov 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
hillary clinton is more popular than bernie sanders among people that write for kotaku
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Endorph posted:hillary clinton is more popular than bernie sanders among people that write for kotaku It is weirdly predictable how few journalists (hard to call Kotaku writers journalists...) are Sanders supporters (even now) compared to the general population. It isn't even just big media outlets, even weekly papers in Portland, Oregon were surprisingly hostile to Sanders and supportive of Hillary (which is really quite nuts when you think about it). Ardennes fucked around with this message at 01:16 on Nov 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Got a link for that? Because it wasn't even true during a good chunk of the primary. http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/tabsHPHillaryClinton20170913.pdf Clinton's 76/20 with democrats and Bernie's 71/20
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:And Hillary Clinton has supposedly been the most admired woman in America multiple times. She doesn't even need to run for anything any more. Trumpists, as well as non-trumpists with sunk costs related to his victory, need something else to talk about. We're going to see continued attacks on the "Clinton Administration" until a front runner for 2020 emerges. Then the RWM will spin up hard against whoever it is. They'll also try a "both sides are saying it!" again, so hopefully there's some stronger counter-narrative this time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
chelsea clinton will be the 2020 democratic nominee
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ninaturner/status/926240828682588161
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
The mere fact that she is a woman doesn't exclude her from tokenism. Trump and your racist uncle have black friends too. Or every libertarian ever saying "Ask all the Asian women I've slept with if I'm racist."
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 04:14 |
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The mere fact that she is a woman doesn't exclude her from tokenism. a woman criticizing another woman on substantive grounds is exactly like a racist guy who fetishizes asian women, you're right
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2017 01:28
|
|