|
Jaxyon posted:Trump crushed a bunch of experienced politicians. He's an a shithead moron, but he turned out to be a surprisingly good campaigner. no, the republican opposition turned out to be massively incompetent as well. so incompetent they lost to an orange idiot. i mean, the frontrunner was loving jeb, the joyful tortoise, bush i know you're an idiot but jesus christ jaxyon quote:There's a lot of things that could have ended in a Hillary win. Bernie campaigned to the left her and did significantly worse in the primaries. But oh yeah, it was rigged so apparently people couldn't vote for him. Right. lol goddamn you're an idiot. so you think if she had shifted left she would've lost. you really sound like a bernie voter jaxyon. also, if the primary wasn't rigged, she wouldn't have had near the campaign funds she needed to win the primary. or a DNC doing oppo research and spreading bullshit about bernie sanders. or a horde of super delegates pledging to vote for her well before any votes were cast and pledging to vote for her over bernie even when he won states. hell, she would've had to go up against biden if the primary wasn't rigged, and if that didn't split her vote and let bernie win, well biden would've won. things would've shaken out a lot differently if hillary didn't have the institutional advantages she had. but, as i said, the DNC had to rig the primary for a very weak candidate, and so a weak candidate like trump was able to win. oops! quote:Statistically, based on polling, it was very likely she was going to win, but not certain. no, it was easy to say during the election she was weak as hell and that's what i've been saying all along. and i was saying it during the election too and being told i didn't know what I was talking about. how about thinking for yourself for a change instead of listening to idiot pundits constantly jaxyon? Condiv fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Jun 14, 2018 |
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Clinton was both a strong primary option and a weak one, I guess? She was a strong choice to win a Democratic primary election and a weak one to win a general Presidential election, yes. Jaxyon posted:You can be sure that whomever the most left person was, it was rigged against them.  You just want to score points by making sure you dismiss criticism ahead of time as being inherently unreasonable.Jaxyon, all of this would go easier for you if you would just let people complain without trying to play defense for awful ideas and people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:12
|
|
|
I also enjoy this rather cute framing of Bernie doing "significantly worse" that completely ignores the actual context of his run - ie, a protest run that unexpectedly blew the gently caress up as an early warning sign that things were gonna get bad, and in which Bernie literally did not campaign in an entire region because he had no idea how close he actually was to an upset until it was too late. It's on the level of people calling Corbyn's embarrassing of May a failure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:12
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:And Hillary's campaign decided on the strategy to boost him to become the nominee, lol. yeah seriously. trump wasn't didn't just win the entire republican primary on his own, hillary boosted him. it was the pied piper strategy. she was itching to run against him cause she thought she could win. and then she was too stupid to win against her pet steak salesman. goddamn what an idiot she was
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Hillary didn't make America be racist. Hillary Clinton owned, no sorry, "leased from the state of Arkansas", slaves. She was literally an arbiter of racism. And yet, somehow she lost in this innately racist country. Wonder what the reason might have been *follows liberal flowchart* oh I see here it's because she was a woman. forbidden dialectics fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Jun 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:15
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i think he means the people who were always screaming about bernie bros and how sexist and racist they were yeah, that makes sense, my bad
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Clinton was both a strong primary option and a weak one, I guess? oddly enough, a candidate who a primary is rigged in favor of tends to be strong within that primary. weird how that works.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:18
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:I also enjoy this rather cute framing of Bernie doing "significantly worse" that completely ignores the actual context of his run - ie, a protest run that unexpectedly blew the gently caress up as an early warning sign that things were gonna get bad, and in which Bernie literally did not campaign in an entire region because he had no idea how close he actually was to an upset until it was too late. No, Bernie did better than anyone thought he would, and he did push Hillary to the left, which was a good thing. His run was good one, because people like Bernie. Just not enough of them did. quote:It's on the level of people calling Corbyn's embarrassing of May a failure. That wasn't' a failure either. WampaLord posted:
I was going to answer that one honestly, but nobody seems to want to deal with the fact that Leftists have a hard time winning high profile races and that's unlikely to change soon. I want to change that, I voted for Bernie in the primary but I didn't think he was getting the nomination. quote:Jaxyon, all of this would go easier for you if you would just let people complain without trying to play defense for awful ideas and people. Bullshit, I've seen how this goes whenever you disagree with the same set of posters. Politics is poo poo. It abounds with awful people. It's depressing and soul crushing. Doesn't mean I like the assholes, but I do try to have an understanding of what happens in politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I was going to answer that one honestly, but nobody seems to want to deal with the fact that Leftists have a hard time winning high profile races and that's unlikely to change soon. I want to change that, I voted for Bernie in the primary but I didn't think he was getting the nomination. you want to change that by voting for right wing dems that the dnc rigs primaries in favor of? are you really that stupid?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Well, the DNC gave millions again to a rightwing shithead in the primary and my leftist candidate lost! Time to vote for the DNC's pick and help leftism!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
America is racists but a lot of racist people care about more than JUST racism. But it turns out if you refuse to offer anything all the racists have no reason NOT to vote for The Racism Candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:36
|
|
|
oh wait i forgot, jaxyon doesn't believe that the democrat party on the national level exerting influence on primaries throughout the country constitutes rigging primaries, cause his brain is fundamentally unsound and he can't conceive that the media, monetary, and connection advantages that the DNC's chosen picks receive could possibly influence the outcome of an election. but really guys, he's a leftist! that's why, despite the party acting against leftist candidates in contravention of their own charter, he's going to defend the party to the hilt and vote for right wing candidates picked by a group of oligarchs!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:37
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Bullshit, I've seen how this goes whenever you disagree with the same set of posters. So you've taken your cynicism and turned it inward into believing that better things aren't possible and throw up your hands and go "Politics, what can you do?" and then vote for whatever shitdem is put before you and then you lie to yourself and go "I'm smart, I understand politics." Sounds like a lovely way to live.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:
Her and her husband sure as poo poo helped institute racist legislature like the crime bill and welfare reform. She's absolutely partially responsible for modern poverty and the jailing of an entire generation. On top of that she had house slaves in the Arkansas gov mansion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
Democrats should be loving embarrassed that republicans have a more democratic primary system than they do. Say whatever you want about him, he won the primary without needing the field cleared for him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 02:47
|
|
|
People that use Democratic primary wins as some sort of trump card for a candidate's elect-ability are hilarious, especially when they are still committed to that talking point after those candidates lose. Like let's pretend that the DNC and DCCC don't exert influence in support of particular candidates and everything is fair. The Democratic Presidential primary in the last two decades has given us Gore, Kerry, Obama, and Clinton. That's one winner and three fantastic losers. It's not exactly a barometer that accurately selects winning Presidential candidates. "How could Bernie have possibly won if Hillary beat him in the primary?  " Like does that imply that no one in this entire country could beat Trump because Hillary won and she couldn't beat him? That the primary literally selects the best general election candidate?Also it's a joke since if Bernie hadn't run she basically would have been running unopposed which is exactly the opposite in what you want to find the strongest candidate. Idiots thought it was going to be a coronation and got very offended when someone got in the way of that and Clinton had to actually campaign which says a lot about how they view Democracy. Oh Snapple! posted:It does not take any amount of hindsight to look at a person poisoned by literal decades of scandal (both legitimate and not) and horrific decisions and come to the conclusion of "this person should not be anywhere loving near a presidential bid" Even when I thought Hillary was going to win, it boggled my mind that people believed she was going to be the person to get cross over votes from Republicans and also "work with Congress" to get stuff done. It's like those people have never actually met a Republican. Even the "good" (at least as far as the Democrats are concerned) ones that are affluent and educated hiss and recoil when you mention her name.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2018 12:40
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYdAk2XEifAJaxyon posted:I'd definitely vote for this guy
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 01:09
|
|
|
You know how the defense of Manchin is that it's better to have someone who votes with Democrats some of the time rather than a Republican who would never do it? This defense assumes that all legislation is equal. Right now, the racist elf has used the same Bible passage that was used to justify slavery and that fucker Manchin voted to confirm him and thinks Sessions isn't racist at all. gently caress Manchin.
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 02:03
|
|
|
theCalamity posted:You know how the defense of Manchin is that it's better to have someone who votes with Democrats some of the time rather than a Republican who would never do it? This defense assumes that all legislation is equal. Right now, the racist elf has used the same Bible passage that was used to justify slavery and that fucker Manchin voted to confirm him and thinks Sessions isn't racist at all. gently caress Manchin. Well it also relies on believing that there’s no such thing as diminishing returns. That it’s still worthwhile to vote for manchin if he votes for racist, sexist, and homophobic policy as long as he votes with the democrats sometimes. It doesn’t seem to matter much to lesser evil subscribers what he votes with dems on. It could be banking deregulation, increasing the spying powers of the president, renaming a post office, whatever. As long as he voted with dems 1% of the time, he’s worth voting for, regardless of the substance or consequences of his votes. It’s the “bernie and hillary share 99% of their voting history! They’re the same!” Of voting strategies. It’s a moronic concept that bases its worthiness on an overly abstracted statistic (and in a lot of cases, it’s not actually a statistic, just a presumption that D== better than).
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 18:44
|
|
|
Jaxyon, what exactly is your point?
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
His point is to waste the time of a bunch of idiot leftists that like to dump paragraphs at people that should be responded to with "you're not a leftist, you're bootlicker scum and will be first up against the wall" these people are not your allies, they never will be. they are the enemy. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 15, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
I’m not going to defend Manchin, but you folks should understand that the point isn’t that “people like him vote with the Dems sometimes”, it’s that if you get a Dem majority there won’t be any bullshit like that scheduled for him to even vote for. In addition to chairing the committees and having subpoena power. poo poo on him all you want, but you’re smart enough to understand this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:it’s that if you get a Dem majority there won’t be any bullshit like that scheduled for him to even vote for. look at this guy who wasn't alive between the years 2008 and 2010
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I’m not going to defend Manchin, but you folks should understand that the point isn’t that “people like him vote with the Dems sometimes”, it’s that if you get a Dem majority there won’t be any bullshit like that scheduled for him to even vote for. In addition to chairing the committees and having subpoena power. how's that stop him from voting racistly? he'd still be a vote to block any laws addressing racism, sexism, and homophobia. and that's just in your perfect "dems block all terrible legislation from coming forward" scenario. considering dems are pushing for more blue dog dems, it becomes less likely that a majority would be enough to stop manchin and his blue dog friends from helping the republicans pass their agenda.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:02
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I’m not going to defend Manchin, but you folks should understand that the point isn’t that “people like him vote with the Dems sometimes”, it’s that if you get a Dem majority there won’t be any bullshit like that scheduled for him to even vote for. In addition to chairing the committees and having subpoena power. I'll bet money if the Dems make any gains this year or 2020 in the senate he's flipping R.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I’m not going to defend Manchin, but you folks should understand that the point isn’t that “people like him vote with the Dems sometimes”, it’s that if you get a Dem majority there won’t be any bullshit like that scheduled for him to even vote for. In addition to chairing the committees and having subpoena power. If the Democrats ever actually achieved anything, swallowing bad politicians to achieve good things would be a valid strategy, but if we need to have bad politicians to pass handouts to insurance companies what's the point?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
Lieberman tanked the public option.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:29
|
|
|
In 2009, there was between 55 and 58 Democrats in the Senate, but somehow Joe Lieberman is personally responsible for the Democrats totally failing to pass any good policy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
Condiv posted:how's that stop him from voting racistly? he'd still be a vote to block any laws addressing racism, sexism, and homophobia. and that's just in your perfect "dems block all terrible legislation from coming forward" scenario. considering dems are pushing for more blue dog dems, it becomes less likely that a majority would be enough to stop manchin and his blue dog friends from helping the republicans pass their agenda. You don’t put lovely bills in front of him to vote on, this isn’t rocket science.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:17
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You don’t put lovely bills in front of him to vote on, this isn’t rocket science.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:I’m not going to defend Manchin, but you folks should understand that the point isn’t that “people like him vote with the Dems sometimes”, it’s that if you get a Dem majority there won’t be any bullshit like that scheduled for him to even vote for. In addition to chairing the committees and having subpoena power. I'd call this adorably naive, but actually it's just stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
Look, part of being a good respectable liberal is always assuming good will on the part of (Democratic) politicians. They can do this because they're fortunate enough to not personally need the positive political change leftists seek. It's okay if the harmful status quo is allowed to continue, as long as they get to continue feeling like a good person who is reasonable and pragmatic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 07:03
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I'd call this adorably naive, but actually it's just stupid. You’re completely broke brained if you think a democratically controlled senate intelligence committee won’t be sending out subpoenas. Ytlaya posted:Look, part of being a good respectable liberal is always assuming good will on the part of (Democratic) politicians. They can do this because they're fortunate enough to not personally need the positive political change leftists seek. It's okay if the harmful status quo is allowed to continue, as long as they get to continue feeling like a good person who is reasonable and pragmatic. I don’t consent to being part of your political masturbation fantasies. Keep this poo poo to yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 08:16
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You’re completely broke brained if you think a democratically controlled senate intelligence committee won’t be sending out subpoenas. Tell me more about how Chuck loving Shumer wouldn't ever let a horrible-rear end bill get to a vote, why don'cha? Incidentally it's this kind of detached-from-reality fanboyism that tips you over to the stupid side, just FYI.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 08:53
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:You’re completely broke brained if you think a democratically controlled senate intelligence committee won’t be sending out subpoenas. after all, last time we had one of those, it was so very active in prosecuting republican crimina- oh right
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 16:14
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Tell me more about how Chuck loving Shumer wouldn't ever let a horrible-rear end bill get to a vote, why don'cha? It’s now fanboyism to point out that having a majority of democratic senators means democratic control of the schedule and the committees? There are rules against posting while high.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 16:44
|
|
|
Do you not have any memory of anything past the last few years? The Bush regime was full of corruption, criminality, and constitutional abuses, and exactly zero of the worst offenders were ever held to account by Democrats. In fact, Obama continued most of Bush's worst actions. If you think the Democrats have significantly changed since 2008, that they've actually learned valuable lessons and want to do things differently next time around, why? What can you point to as evidence of this? Because the other side can point to, oh, the past two hundred years or so as evidence that they haven't learned a thing, and will continue to not learn a thing until they're forced to do so. Like, what does this Solkanar512 posted:having a majority of democratic senators means democratic control of the schedule and the committees actually mean to you in practical terms?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 17:11
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:It’s now fanboyism to point out that having a majority of democratic senators means democratic control of the schedule and the committees? There are rules against posting while high. They’re saying that even with democratic control, it doesn’t mean that they’ll actually do anything progressive. They’ll try to compromise with the GOP to be seen as bipartisan.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 17:13
|
|
|
They had Democratic control and we got the lovely ACA which is a republican think tank healthcare plan that was sabotaged by a democrat and written by the insurance lobby.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 17:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:It’s now fanboyism to point out that having a majority of democratic senators means democratic control of the schedule and the committees? There are rules against posting while high. Solkanar512 posted:I’m not going to defend Manchin, but you folks should understand that the point isn’t that “people like him vote with the Dems sometimes”, it’s that if you get a Dem majority there won’t be any bullshit like that scheduled for him to even vote for. In addition to chairing the committees and having subpoena power. You do know that the old strategically forgetting what you've said before trick doesn't really work when people can go back and read your old posts, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2018 17:35
|
|