|
Majorian posted:What part, do you think, I played in this? I didn't spread any conspiracy theories against Clinton - in fact, I openly argued against them and worked to debunk them. I gave money to her campaign, I got out and voted, I registered people in my county to vote, etc. The vast majority of Sanders voters turned out for Clinton. So acting as if all or even a significant amount of Bernie supporters played a major role in Clinton's defeat is extremely gross. Most of us did everything we were asked to do, and more. So no, I don't accept your framing, and I reserve the right to criticize her shitshow of a campaign, and its DNC enablers, whenever the gently caress I want. Do you ever get tired of these exercises in futility, knowing that nothing you say will change a thing?
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
Office Pig posted:Do you ever get tired of these exercises in futility, knowing that nothing you say will change a thing? *takes a drag off of a clove cigarette very Frenchily, exhales, stares off into the distance* Such is life, non?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 00:30
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What part, do you think, I played in this? None. I am saying framing it as 'just Hilary being stupid' is removing any responsibility from how you or I may have contributed. Which may have been small but is also a part of this puzzle. It's making the voting populous somehow not responsible for how we consume and process the information and the consequences thereof, and simplifying it to 'we did nothing inherently morally wrong'. I know it feels like people blame Bernie bros, but it is only because of this lack of being willing to take responsibility. The more Bernouts push back to insist they're idealogically pure and in the right, the worse the schism will get. Majorian posted:Most of us did everything we were asked to do, and more. So no, I don't accept your framing, and I reserve the right to criticize her shitshow of a campaign, and its DNC enablers, whenever the gently caress I want. But maybe consider that it's BOTH OF THESE THINGS, a confluence of events, and not one of the other. Hilary was an idiot, but so are many politicians, including Trump. And consider that maybe your anger at doing so much work and seeing it fall down the shitter is influencing your view and making you more embittered about this. You're not wrong to be angry, but I'm certainly hearing a lot of personal indignance here, like I DID EVERYTHING RIGHT AND HILARY hosed IT UP, ARGH. I don't think Hilary is an idiot, she has a long career of getting by and better, I think she did dumb things which were risky and many didn't work out or were exposed, and that in a normal political climate probably would have gotten by. I think the DNC was playing by old rules, just like the entire government, and got their asses handed to them by opponents who don't follow the Rules of Engagement. You can disagree, but I think you'd just be oversimplifying the whole issue to cast yourself as justified because you're still hurt. The way you're talking, it's a You Against The World thing and it's tied to your personal identity. StrangersInTheNight fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Feb 18, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 00:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
OTOH this is still, when it comes down to it, such an exceptionally small amount of people as a sub-group to the already minor political class that I think "other people also technically just as bad" is irrelevant. She's not technically unique among the human poo poo that congregates in that particular toilet bowl, but no one in that group gets to be counted as "minor" in terms of their offenses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 00:56
|
|
|
I mean, I grew up around the rich and corrupt, so yeah my baseline for 'minor' is different. The rich mostly play games involving how people appear and what their reputation is to try to take each other down politically, using information regardless of the source (and often veracity) and have effectively weaponized shock against one another for political gain, so this 2016 election BS is basically what I've seen since birth. I see a lot of people try to take the whole 'it wasn't me, it was the INFORMATION that did it' tactic and I don't buy it anymore. People releasing information from a questionable source targeted at damaging someone, and then people buying into it, is a manipulation and a danger to even the smartest of us, because it's so easy to stoke egos.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 01:02
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:None. I am saying framing it as 'just Hilary being stupid' is removing any responsibility from how you or I may have contributed. Wait a second. So you're not pinning any responsibility on me...yet you are? Which is it? How do you think I contributed to the spreading of misinformation about Clinton? quote:But maybe consider that it's BOTH OF THESE THINGS, a confluence of events, and not one of the other. Hilary was an idiot, but so are many politicians, including Trump. And consider that maybe your anger at doing so much work and seeing it fall down the shitter is influencing your view and making you more embittered about this. You're not wrong to be angry, but I'm certainly hearing a lot of personal indignance here, like I DID EVERYTHING RIGHT AND HILARY hosed IT UP, ARGH. My indignation stems from the fact that, almost a year and a half after the election, it's still being suggested that because I supported Sanders during the primary, and was critical of Clinton's strategy during the general, I contributed to the election of Donald Trump. I have to say, I feel pretty justified in resenting that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 01:56
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:Just a reminder that just 9 years ago, the Democrats were the party of Obama. But this destruction of the left has been going on for a while, and this is part of it - creating internal tensions and stoking purity scares. How far we have fallen, indeed. From a charming neolib to a charmless one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 10:28
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:
Obama was trash too, eat my whole rear end if you want me to believe his presidency was the peak of leftist thought in American politics
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 12:16
|
|
|
"stoking purity scares" yeah, how dare people treat democrats as if their willingness to make a stand for their constituents is questionable incidentally, eat poo poo and die, you uppity loving dreamer trash, your trust in us is now being repaid with deportations if you complain about this you're doing a Purity Politics
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:Look, I'm just saying, the conversation effectively got turned away from Trump and towards Hilary, and challenged her to constantly defend herself while also establishing an image as sincere and not a crook, while an ACTUAL CROOK got away with the Presidency. If your response to Democratic corruption is anything other than "holy poo poo, Democrats need to stop being so loving corrupt" then you are condoning corruption within the system fyi
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
A reminder that nine years ago the Democrats didn't represent the left either
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 21:49
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:Look, I'm just saying, the conversation effectively got turned away from Trump and towards Hilary, and challenged her to constantly defend herself while also establishing an image as sincere and not a crook, while an ACTUAL CROOK got away with the Presidency. The Democrats intentionally ran on personality rather than policy, overlooking the commonly observed tendency for overly negative advertising to have negative blowback on the campaign behind it. They decided to eschew any comprehensive new policy initiatives or any sweeping vision of a different future because they thought that by focusing on character issues they wouldn't have to propose any radical changes. This would be fine because, as Chuck Schumer said, "For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” This turned out to be disastrous. There's actual a fairly substantial body of empirical evidence showing that voters mostly vote based on their identity. They have a web of social relationships and identifications which inform their politics and they vote accordingly. Elections in America tend to be fought and won not in the centre ground competing for swing voters but rather through mobilizing your own side in higher numbers. In cases where someone has to ask between their personal beliefs and their partisan identity there is an extremely robust tendency for voters to shift their opinions to align with their partisan loyalties: Democracy for Realists Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, Christopher H. Achen & Larry M. Bartels p. 17 posted:Next, we examine the evolution and impact of citizens’views regarding the highly charged issue of abortion. As the Democratic and Republican parties took increasingly clear, opposing stands on the issue through the 1980s and 1990s, partisan identities often came into conflict with gender identities. We show that this conflict was resolved in quite different ways for women and for men. A substantial number of women gravitated to the party sharing their view about abortion, reflecting the deep significance of the issue for women. Men, on the other hand, more often changed their view about abortion to comport with their partisanship—in effect, letting their party tell them what to think about one of the most contentious moral issues in contemporary American politics. In both cases, identity was politically powerful in ways that the folk theory of democracy obscures or ignores. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government, Christopher H. Achen & Larry M. Bartels pp. 17-18 posted:We illustrate this phenomenon by examining beliefs about a highly salient and significant political fact—the size of the federal budget deficit. The deficit had decreased by more than half during Bill Clinton’s first term as president; yet most Republicans in a 1996 survey managed to convince themselves that it had increased. Even many Democrats and Independents had too little real information to get the facts right, but for Republicans the lack of information was compounded by a partisan desire to see a Democratic administration in a negative light. Indeed, moderately well-informed Republicans had less accurate beliefs than the least informed; a modicum of information was sufficient to discern what they should want to be true, but not enough to discern what was in fact true. They sounded like they were thinking, but no one should be fooled. Democrats behaved in much the same way on other issues. Yet Democrats proved themselves irresistably attracted to the idea that they could win by peeling Republican swing voters in suburban districts off of the GOP coalition. Never mind the fact that Obama was pushing a deeply unpopular trade bill right up until the election - a bill that directly ran afoul of key Democratic voting groups in vital states that Hillary went on to lose - this didn't matter because every blue collar Democrat who abandoned the party was thought to be replaceable by a suburban Republican. I would suggest there's more than just innocent miscalculation here. We get a sense of why Democrats chose this strategy when we look at guys like Stephen Cloobeck, a major Democratic donor (and a man claiming to speak for many other such major donors) who openly said that if the party doesn't ditch all the talk about reigning in money on Wall Street then he will stop donating. We can assume that Hilary (and Obama before her) got plenty of similar messages behind closed doors as well. So the Democrats can't raise money from their big donors if they actually give their core membership the kind of social democratic and unabashedly populist tinge that the Berniecrats are demanding, even though there's plenty of indication that running on traditional partisan Democratic issues and rhetoric would actually help drive up turn out. Instead we have a Democratic party that insisted on huge television advertising purchases, despite television advertising consistently being found to have the least impact on potential voters. Most of that money was ploughed into media buys premised on the idea that the Democrats would win by appealing to moderate, college educated suburban Republicans who would be outraged by Trump's conduct, a notion that isn't necessarily well supported by available social scientific research: The Atlantic posted:A new paper by two California political scientists finds that the total effect of these efforts is zero, meaning that they have no impact on how voters vote. David Broockman, a Stanford University assistant professor, and Joshua Kalla, a doctoral student at the University of California, Berkeley, analyzed data from 49 field experiments—state, local, and federal campaigns that let political scientists access their data to evaluate their methods. For every flyer stuck in a mailbox, every door knocked by an earnest volunteer, and every candidate message left on an answering machine, there was no measurable change in voting outcomes. Even early outreach efforts, which are somewhat more successful at persuading voters, tend to fade from memory by Election Day. Broockman and Kalla also estimated that the effect of television and online ads is zero, although only a small portion of their data speaks directly to that point. The Atlantic posted:Green: As you point out, a ton of money is spent every election cycle on television ads, directing-mail campaigns, canvassing operations, etc., which are all designed to persuade voters. How should we grapple with the fact that all this spending is largely ineffective? Its worth noting that the DNC still wants to control how local campaigns spend their money and in particular wants to drive people to use DNC approved vendors to take out expensive television advertisements, despite the fact these advertisements are not effective at driving turnout and are part of a larger misguided strategy of winning with swing voters. The thing is, despite the Democratic party's very lacklustre record of winning elections, the party was going deeply into debt to pay these consultants. Let's not forget [url= this memorable bit from Brazille's tell all book: Politico posted:“What’s the burn rate, Gary?” I asked. “How much money do we need every month to fund the party?” Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that the Democrats spent $700 to $800 billion on five consultants. And these consultants are in turn part of the DNC power structure and act in various ways to perpetuate it. Meanwhile leading Democrats may not consistently win elections of deliver good policy results for their consistent but they remain wealthy and powerful by virtue of the gate keeping role they have in the party and by virtue of largley monopolizing control of one of the two major legacy parties in the United States. These people are aligned with the same interests who are already pressuring the Democrats to see reason on stuff like the government shut down. These are the voices that will insure that when they get back into power the Democrats won't fundamentally change Trump's tax reforms. They are, in essence, the closest thing you could get to a paid opposition in America. And they are objectively better off losing with the Democratic party as it currently exists than they would be allowing the party to be transformed into a more effective vote winning populist political organization. Yes we could spend hours or days bemoaning the racism of the electorate, the unfairness of the electoral college, the dangers represented by Trump, etc. The bottom line is that the only part of the American political crisis that people here have any conceivable influence over (mild influence though it may be) is the internal composition of the Democratic party. You can't really reverse America's history of racism or the existence of the modern GOP, but maybe you could at least work on kicking out the well heeled consultant parasites and donors who are literally making it impossible for the Democrats to properly appeal to the core groups of voters that could conceivably get them elected again. You'll never fix the Republicans but there's at least a snowballs chance in hell somebody could do something about the Democrats. And that starts with cleaning house and purging the consultants who are de facto getting paid to lose.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
If you liked Hillary then your political instincts are poo poo and your morality is poo poo. That's fine - my best friend, who I love dearly, is a Hillary fan - but he's a loving political dumbass who owns the entire West Wing box set and watches it in full every year, and he loved those "America is still great" hats.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:I mean, I grew up around the rich and corrupt, so yeah my baseline for 'minor' is different. The rich mostly play games involving how people appear and what their reputation is to try to take each other down politically, using information regardless of the source (and often veracity) and have effectively weaponized shock against one another for political gain, so this 2016 election BS is basically what I've seen since birth. I see a lot of people try to take the whole 'it wasn't me, it was the INFORMATION that did it' tactic and I don't buy it anymore. People releasing information from a questionable source targeted at damaging someone, and then people buying into it, is a manipulation and a danger to even the smartest of us, because it's so easy to stoke egos. This is stupid, because you're basically giving the Russians (or anyone else) the ability to instantly discredit literally anything by voicing support for it themselves. Except, for some very strange reason, you only apply this to the radical left. Do you also think that people who care about the police brutality were duped by Russia because Russia posted some pro-BLM stuff? Also, given your upbringing you might not realize this, but America actually has some very serious problems. There are reasons other than Russia that people are so upset. I understand this might be confusing for someone who doesn't face these issues themselves, but many Americans have been doing poorly for a very long time and aren't going to be satisfied with the status quo regardless of what Russian says or does. StrangersInTheNight posted:Look, I'm just saying, the conversation effectively got turned away from Trump and towards Hilary, and challenged her to constantly defend herself while also establishing an image as sincere and not a crook, while an ACTUAL CROOK got away with the Presidency. There is no shortage of people condemning Trump. When 90+% of Democrats are focusing on Trump and a small minority criticizing the Democrats and you find yourself getting irritated with that minority, I think it's time to do some deep introspection about what's really motivating you. Using your logic, literally any message Russia pushed is inherently "corrupted." Why do you apply this standard only to their anti-Hillary/DNC stuff but not to their anti-Trump messaging? It is transparently obvious to anyone looking from the outside that you're primarily motivated by an irrational distaste towards leftists (or some stereotype of them you have in your mind, anyways). Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Feb 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2018 20:16
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Good stuff Thanks for this post.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2018 16:20
|
|
|
The Trump thread liberals have gotten red-pilled tonight. Arguing Al Franken should get free assgrabs for doing such good legislating. Predicting that vapid whores are going to slander decent red-blooded lusty Democratic Senators with false accusations that will get them all fired by SJW hysteria. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:49 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
Yeah we'd better go ahead and start ignoring victims of sexual assault again, in case this thing that hasn't happened happens, because by then it would be too late to, you know, investigate and confirm the claims before calling for heads on spikes like we always do.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 06:55
|
|
|
Posting in honor of our fallen comrades, cut down in their prime by spurious claims of sexual assault: e: I'll fill in the list later.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 06:56
|
|
|
"Only Serious people can protect the Dreamers and stand up for women" -abandons Dreamers -sides with sex pest white dude who didn't face any criminal penalty but lost his job
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The Trump thread liberals have gotten red-pilled tonight. I mean I get it, it's constantly disheartening that "basic human decency" is only a requirement for our side. If they keep celebrating serial child molesters like hastart, why do we have to get rid off effective senators for some minor rear end grabbing? You're just seeing people's frustration with how awfully the system is rigged in favor of regressive assholes. If "grab 'em by the pussy" disqualified you for the presidency, nobody would bat an eye about Franken getting the boot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:01
|
|
|
Harik posted:If "grab 'em by the pussy" disqualified you for the presidency, nobody would bat an eye about Franken getting the boot. The acceptable amount of sexual assault for a senator isn't n-1 sexual assaults. It's zero. That's not a high bar. I have accomplished it and I'm a moron. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Feb 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
The only thing that can stop a Bad Guy grabbing boobies is a Good Guy grabbing boobies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:27
|
|
|
Always got to minimize sexual assault when I like the abuser.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
Jokes aside, the most charitable thing you can say about pro-Franken-for-Senate arguments is that they seem to be based on this erroneous assumption that qualified senators are some scarce resource that are on the verge of running out instead of there being plenty of people out there who can do the job just as well but aren't creepy-creep sexmonsters while doing it. E: Also on the assumption that there's no way being a sexmonster could be a problem in the next election, just ask Alabama Senator Roy "gotta pick up my girlfriend from trig class" Moore
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
You’re lying if you call yourself a feminist and still think it is ok to assault women for your own gratification.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:31
|
|
|
Harik posted:I mean I get it, it's constantly disheartening that "basic human decency" is only a requirement for our side. If they keep celebrating serial child molesters like hastart, why do we have to get rid off effective senators for some minor rear end grabbing? Here's a hot take: If your reaction to some GOP ghoul being a sexual abuser is even anywhere in the vicinity of "but why can't my side get away with that kind of stuff, so unfair  ", you might very well be a right scumbag.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:41
|
|
|
I'm sure Therefore omg how could you make Franken resign, what if we lose the next election with our non-sexmonster candidate, politics is weird anything can happen, so the last thing we need is the unpredictability of running a nonincumbent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
democrats.jpg "Just give up for a generation, we'll win again once we're all dead!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Jokes aside, the most charitable thing you can say about pro-Franken-for-Senate arguments is that they seem to be based on this erroneous assumption that qualified senators are some scarce resource that are on the verge of running out instead of there being plenty of people out there who can do the job just as well but aren't creepy-creep sexmonsters while doing it. Hint: It's because they want to support their aristocracy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
The DCCC tells Dems: don't talk about healthcare, but if you have to do it...DON'T talk about Single Payer!!!! https://theintercept.com/2018/02/27/dccc-internal-polling-congress-single-payer/
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:32
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The DCCC tells Dems: don't talk about healthcare, but if you have to do it...DON'T talk about Single Payer!!!! Which is, of course, bad faith or incompetence (and it is certainly hard to tell which is which with the DCCC). How many things were deeply unpopular with Republicans up until the point where the republican party came out forcefully in favor of it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2018 23:54
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The DCCC tells Dems: don't talk about healthcare, but if you have to do it...DON'T talk about Single Payer!!!!
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 00:20
|
|
|
To be fair to Carville, from what I heard the dude was yelling at Clinton during the whole campaign to travel to the Rust Belt and talk about jobs and blue collar issues, and no one listened to him. Doesn't make this pic any less hilarious, of course. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 07:54
|
|
|
James carville is a piece of poo poo who made a ton of money supporting awful politicians, including the former president of Bolívia who the US refuses to extradite back to Bolívia
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 09:18
|
|
|
It's going to be "hilarious" when Trump accidentally tweets in support of single payer during the election because he gets claps (while not really understanding it or have any interest in actually enacting it) then the DCCC approved candidate has to stumble awkwardly during a debate and explain why his or her much more complicated vision that no one wants is totally for real better. I don't really buy the "Oh no Republicans will vote against us if we support this which is why we are doing this!!!" excuse anymore. Even people as dumb as the DCCC have to know that Republicans in general (I'm not talking about the fabled Moderates they desperately want as their base) will vote against them regardless; they just don't want to do these things. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 17:06 on Feb 28, 2018 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
Isn't that what happened in 2016 Trump said everyone's healthcare would be paid for day 1 Hillary was all "well with a few tweaks that will never make it past congress we could reduce the uninsured rate by 3.256% while premiums and deductibles and copays strangle you to death 2.63% slower because you gotta have skin in the game."
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 17:07
|
|
|
Same deal with people believing Trump was going to legalize weed, protect gay rights and not actually do anything bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 18:30
|
|
|
It's almost like politicians should say things people want to hear. Someone cut me a million-dollar check I am the best consultant.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 18:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:55 |
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:It's almost like politicians should say things people want to hear. The issue is that the left will hold politicians to account, and the right will believe whatever fever dreams Fox News wants them to about how whatever went wrong is Killary's fault, and thus we'll continue to suffer. Had Bernie won, I have no doubt his supporters would be disillusioned by his lack of ability to do 100% of the things he said he would instantly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2018 19:17
|
|
