|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Except the voters who are getting another reinforcement of their perception that both parties are in Wall Street's pocket. I suppose it's kinda telling how you don't consider them relevant, though. Mr. Noah just showed you that they don't. Your spooked voters are in your head. Cerebral Bore posted:Ah yes, because the GOP will seize upon this there is literally no grounds for legitimate criticism. Dismissing everything bad that your political leaders do because the other side will also attack it is surely not how you end up with out of touch and unaccountable party elites, no sir. And even if you do, nobody ~relevant~ will care, which is why we have President Hillary and a Democratic Congress right now. You can lash out at me all you want, doesn't change the fact y'all took the bait. There's a fine line between self-reflection and eating your own and you purists frequently don't notice when you cross it.
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:See this is the problem of being inside an echo chamber populated by purist shitposters. After a while you crawl so far up your rear end that you can't help but lash out when reality tries to pull you back out. Instead of analyzing the interesting implications of this tweet, you guys would much rather chicken little about how this is the end of the Dems. It's time to engage with reality friends. People like you spent the last year and a half saying that Clinton's trust issues and her relationship to Wall Street and entrenched interests did not matter. They did matter and she lost the election. The Democratic Party has awful favorables and people think they're out of touch. You write with a completely unearned certainty. No one thinks the things you people say are true anymore. They are verifiably untrue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:12
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:People like you spent the last year and a half saying that Clinton's trust issues and her relationship to Wall Street and entrenched interests did not matter. They did matter and she lost the election. The Democratic Party has awful favorables and people think they're out of touch. See? Listen to yourself. "Relationship to Wall Street", "entrenched interests", "out of touch" you guys even talk like them
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:15
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Mr. Noah just showed you that they don't. Your spooked voters are in your head. Yeah, The Daily Show sure as hell has its finger on the pulse of people besides liberals who'll vote Dem anyway. Really got me there. SSNeoman posted:You can lash out at me all you want, doesn't change the fact y'all took the bait. There's a fine line between self-reflection and eating your own and you purists frequently don't notice when you cross it. Naw, I'm just informing you that the people who are and have been running the Democratic party are clueless morons who are on a losing streak that's almost a decade long by now, and that your utter refusal to countenance any criticism whatsoever of your political leaders, who have ran the party straight into the ground is pretty loving bad. Because it leads to even more losing, you see. But hey, I suppose nobody ~relevant~would be harmed by that so it's all good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:16
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:The collapse of rudatron into full-on hatred of all the darker peoples of the earth on grounds they're not the right flavor of woke for him has been ongoing for quite some time now. Trevor Noah issuing a lame-rear end joke in defense of the democratic establishment driving him to existential despair is not unpredictable, but it is embarrassing to watch. You're part of the problem here, you know that? Believe it or not, idpol is not equivalent to anti-racism, and abusing the legitimate goal of anti-racism to justify political corruption, is the exact kind of bullshit that makes idpol destructive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
just coming in to say that i also never took this thread seriously. you have played right in to my hands, puppets
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
Calibanibal posted:just coming in to say that i also never took this thread seriously. you have played right in to my hands, puppets SSNeoman posted:Majorian I'm gonna tell you straight up right now that I will not engage in seriousposting itt.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:22
|
|
|
Reality to thread, reality speaking: no one relevant cared about President Clinton's paid speeches nor those of her husband after his tenure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
If we had fought against the GOP's messaging harder than no, nobody would have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:If we had fought against the GOP's messaging harder than no, nobody would have. "If we only shut out all criticism we'll be sure to win" - Hillary Clinton's campaign 2016
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:"If we only shut out all criticism we'll be sure to win" I mean honestly
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
why should anyone vote for a dem if they're just going to work for wall street or other big industries while in office? i hate republicans for doing that i thought dems cared about the dignity of their offices, but theres no dignity in selling them to the highest corporate bidder
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:38
|
|
|
This Obama argument is a perfect encapsulation of what leftists mean when they criticize 'identity politics'. What you have is a party establishment / mainstream who think there is nothing inherently wrong with the economics and political relationships of America. Their reasons include: 1) they benefit from these economic and political relationships, 2) they are ideologically capitalist and as such believe the integrity of economic transactions is more important than anything. Because these people are fundamentally unable to attack the economic relationships and dynamics in American politics, what they do is they create a hollowed-out, mutant version of 'identity politics' where the economic (and even the political) relationships are erased (in order to justify not tackling them). This hollow version is not about the economic relationships in American politics, but just about apolitical, amoral, contextless minority status. This is how you end up in a situation where people are defending a former President of the U.S. receiving money (that he does not need) from the type of company that he should have been after during his presidency (and largely wasn't) in a way that strongly suggests, at the very least, an unhealthy relationship between business and politics, by pointing to his blackness. The "how dare you criticize a black man for making money" comes in two distinct but equally perverse forms: 1) there is nothing wrong with the economic relationships in American politics. Therefore, to criticize the first black president for partaking in them is racist. This is wrong for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that people actually did care about how other presidents made money, certainly they cared how the Clintons did. 2) It doesn't matter whether there is something wrong or not; what matters is that a black man is able to partake in it. This is just perverse cynicism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
to democrats, wanting to lock up the people who were forcing minorities into subprime loans even when they qualified for normal ones is racism i'm not sure how defending redliners from legal consequences is supposed to be helping PoC. nor do i see how allowing banks to foreclose on PoC while they're active duty helps them. nor do i see how letting banks fraudulently foreclose on them with forged title documentation helps PoC. but all of these actions are definitely not racist, and anyone complaining about them is the real racist!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:If we had fought against the GOP's messaging harder than no, nobody would have. This is a dumb thing to say, and transparently ideological. Voters actually care about things. It's not just about repeatedly telling them that they are wrong or that something isn't true. Clinton and the Democrats did not fight harder against the negativity towards Clinton because they didn't actually have the weapons to fight harder. They didn't have any good arguments. This is why most of Clinton and Democrats' defense was just to hope things went away. Clinton and her campaign tried to minimize the 'Wall Street speeches' thing because they knew there was no good argument for it. There are even leaked emails about this. They were fully aware this was an issue that was largely indefensible. The only defense was to pretend there was no real issue, hide the transcripts, and hope people forget. You betray your ideology when you say Dems should have 'fought against GOP's messaging', as if the problem here was just that the GOP decided to have messages, and not the actions that Clinton and Democrats took before she ran for president. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Apr 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 08:52
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Clinton and the Democrats did not fight harder against the negativity towards Clinton because they didn't actually have the weapons to fight harder. They didn't have any good arguments. Horseshit, Hillary was just convinced that everything was fine and there was no way she could lose. She didn't try to control the message nearly as hard as she should have.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 09:20
|
|
|
The media was incredibly lenient on Hillary, and almost every single celebrity came out and endorsed her. Hillary had better 'messaging' than almost any political campaign in history, as well as one of the largest campaign warchests ever assembled. What she didn't have a vision, a reason for her to run for election, other than "it's her turn". Which was quite possibly one of the most self absorbed, selfish, and empty slogans in all of political history. No one, not even the people voting for her, was enthusiastic about Clinton. Because literally everyone saw through the vacuous 'messaging' of the Clinton campaign team. rudatron fucked around with this message at 09:44 on Apr 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 09:42
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:See? Listen to yourself. "Relationship to Wall Street", "entrenched interests", "out of touch" you guys even talk like them How about this: quit loving worrying about what Republicans say. What they do or don't do isn't evidence of anything, because they'll blow stuff out of proportion or if that doesn't work just make poo poo up. As such they're not a reliable indicator that a thing is right or wrong. And despite what JeffersonClay would have you believe leftists are not listening to right-wing media and taking notes. Try listening to your purported allies every so often instead of dismissing every criticism with "oh, you leftists and your purity tests 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 09:48
|
|
|
Most media outlets were all in on Hillary, but Neoman is right that she basically gave them nothing to work with. She had an amazing infrastructural potential for sending out a powerful message, but she threw it out because she thought that simply being endorsed was good enough on its own, that she didn't need any substance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 09:47
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:You betray your ideology when you say Dems should have 'fought against GOP's messaging', as if the problem here was just that the GOP decided to have messages, and not the actions that Clinton and Democrats took before she ran for president.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 10:07
|
|
|
Why should anyone who's tired of corrupt politicians vote for the democrats again? The dems call us racist cause we want Wall Street to not have a death grip on the Democratic Party. Why should I bother to vote for ridiculously corrupt party that will back financiers stealing everything I own?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 10:48
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Horseshit, Hillary was just convinced that everything was fine and there was no way she could lose. She didn't try to control the message nearly as hard as she should have. That's not really true. I mean, we know this because Podesta's emails leaked. Her campaign was 'flagging' parts of her Wall Street speeches that could be controversial or troublesome. (of course, they did not seem to realize that the concept of the speeches itself was controversial). Podesta acknowledges in these emails that Clinton made "terrible decisions pre-campaign". There's a billion emails from Neera Tanden where she says, in a variety of different ways, "jesus christ why the gently caress did Hillary say/do this". Clinton's campaign was fully aware that there were a lot of problems with her pre-campaign actions and her record, and they knew that there wasn't really a good way out of it. That's why the campaign was 'cautious' in a lot of ways.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 11:03
|
|
|
Most of Clinton's flaws were political in nature. Even strategic flaws go back to politics/ideology. The campaign wasn't a bunch of stupid idiots who didn't know you had to campaign in Michigan or that you needed to have a rationale for running or that didn't know Wall Street speeches were bad. Rather, it was a campaign for a candidate who'd made mistakes that could not be easily justified, and had ideological positions that could not be reconciled with the beliefs of many/most Americans and was unwilling to change them. The campaign knew there was no easy way out of this, so they tried to minimize the damage and appeal to other people in different ways (which didn't work either). They knew that the speeches were bad (just didn't know how bad), they knew the email server thing was bad (just didn't know how bad), they knew the candidate did not appeal to Rust Belt voters (just didn't know how badly). They thought these problems were bad, but not bad enough that she couldn't win in some other way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
Everyone remember in the next thread to post "I won't be seriousposting" early in threads so you can pull a lame puppet master thing when your positions make you sound like a moron. Also love the idea that if a Republican ever said it, it suddenly becomes an invalid criticism
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
My favorite argument I've read on here so far is that the only way poor Obama can raise money for his future political goals is to go hat in hand to corporations after having ran two of the most successful grassroots campaigns in modern history. Just LMAO Edit: Like he could have thrown up a stirring YouTube video and website for people to donate and get involved, but I guess that's too hard??? BadOptics fucked around with this message at 13:25 on Apr 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 13:14
|
|
|
Why the gently caress some people go so far in defending powerful people, goddamn That Trevor Noah poo poo is loving retarded - Obama would have been making bank if he didn't give a single gently caress about politics because before anything else he is a son of harvard law school which would have given him some of the best economic opportunities available on this earth but no, they gotta make him like a poor weakling bastard
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 13:23
|
|
|
Did Obama spend a ton of his net worth during his term and is now broke? Like, he was a millionaire before being President, and as President you basically spend 0 of your own money, so why does he need some cash now? Did he blow through his entire nest egg in the 3 months since leaving the job?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 13:25
|
|
|
dead comedy forums posted:Why the gently caress some people go so far in defending powerful people, goddamn Well you see nobody said anything about this being bad before Obama (please ignore anything mentioned before the internet era/creation of SomethingAwful)!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 13:26
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Did Obama spend a ton of his net worth during his term and is now broke? He has sold his memoirs for something like 50 million bucks. Note how nobody is attacking him for that even if it is a much higher sum - that's because in that case he's actually selling a product to the public instead of participating on an elite circlejerk. Also Big Publishing isn't a threat to democracy and freedom.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The media was incredibly lenient on Hillary, and almost every single celebrity came out and endorsed her. Hillary had better 'messaging' than almost any political campaign in history, as well as one of the largest campaign warchests ever assembled. any more verbatim right wing talking points you'd like to share
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:07
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:any more verbatim right wing talking points you'd like to share frakeaing HAMSTER DANCE posted:Also love the idea that if a Republican ever said it, it suddenly becomes an invalid criticism This thread is like a tape recorder on loop
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:This thread is like a tape recorder on loop "criticism" can be invalid for lots of reasons, go on whining about the media and celebrities though if it makes you feel better
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:"criticism" can be invalid for lots of reasons perhaps you'd like to share
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
Polygynous posted:"criticism" can be invalid for lots of reasons, go on whining about the media and celebrities though if it makes you feel better "someone i dont like leveled the same criticism" isnt one of them though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
The idea that we mustn't criticize Democrats because it helps Republicans is so ridiculous. It seems to me that taking a principled stand against corruption and having the integrity to avoid ethically compromising situations even when they benefit you financially, and being willing to hold your own party accountable for the same rather than cynically excusing it for short-term gain is good for a party's public image. And telling the public that caring about public corruption is a Republican issue and a right-wing talking point is the most grevious self-inflicted wound imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:Proud of ya dude. I don't spend as much time here as some of you, and no one I know of that's heard of this, from relatively apolitical people to liberals to leftists has anything good to say about it (right wingers hate the Democrats anyway so it makes no difference). My dad is a huge Obama fan and just shook his head when I asked him about it. I don't know whether you consider ordinary people 'relevant' or not, but there you go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
That people don't care about issues doesn't mean they don't exist. Nobody cares about global warming either, if day to day concerns of the average person on the street are to be the main indicator.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
rudatron posted:They did it, they finally did it You maniacs! You blew it up! God drat you! God drat you all to hell!
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
Is the daily show really on the pulse of liberalism? I was under the impression that once Jon Stewart left everybody stopped watching. also, lol @ SSNeoman posted:And the reality is this: nobody who is relevant cares that Obama took speaking fees. Anyone who says they do, is concern trolling NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Apr 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:08 |
|
|
quote:nobody who is relevant cares Please define "who is relevant".
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2017 18:06
|
|