|
Rush Limbo posted:I like Bernie and I agree with a lot of his positions, but he definitely has a weird blind spot when it comes to minorities and if he was the Democratic candidate we probably would have a Fascist America because those minorities have considerable voting power and not being able to secure their vote would be the death knell for the Democrat's chances. Sanders' failures among minority voters were more a function of brand failure within the Democratic Party than it was an intrinsic problem with Bernie. Let's not forget that Obama cleaned Hillary's clock with the black vote way worse in 2008 than Clinton did with Sanders in 2016, and this didn't result in black people hating Hillary forever. At the end of the day when your choices are a man whose minority outreach strategy is trying to make it impossible for them to vote, and one who marched in Civil Rights movements, that's really not much of a choice. Lightning Knight posted:Nah Bernie would've won, minority voters would've turned out against Trump regardless, it just would've been much closer for longer and he probably wouldn't actually handle being President well. He'd be Carter 2.0. I just want to mention that while I don't necessarily agree, this is a much more realistic hypothetical than the "Sanders would have lost and we would have gotten eternal fascism" view that has somehow become popular around D&D these days. Hillary's wavechange landslide has more to do with Trump than it does to do with Hillary.
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
I think Hillary could've beaten any Republican candidate that could've made it through the primary this year, albeit not nearly as cleanly. Also while much of Bernie's poor performance among minorities is due to his hilarious inability to address their concerns, younger minorities were generally more receptive to him than older minorities and less inclined to like Hillary, which speaks to the general divide between younger and older voters towards Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
Rush Limbo posted:I like Bernie and I agree with a lot of his positions, but he definitely has a weird blind spot when it comes to minorities and if he was the Democratic candidate we probably would have a Fascist America because those minorities have considerable voting power and not being able to secure their vote would be the death knell for the Democrat's chances. Are you saying black people would rather vote for Trump than the guy who is addressing their issues? Strangely Sanders had consistently better head to head polls against Republican nominees than Clinton. People are saying Sanders had a blind spot for minorities, but it was Hillary who had a black girl dragged out of her event while her white donors were literally hissing at her for bringing up BLM. Overall Sanders's point was that the best plan for minorities was a solid economic platform with targeted aid to most disadvantaged areas. Whether he would have been a good president is up for debate, but I think an averagely apt well-intentioned politician can be much better than a skillful cynic driven by pure self interest. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Oct 25, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Are you saying black people would rather vote for Trump than the guy who is addressing their issues? Strangely Sanders had consistently better head to head polls against Republican nominees than Clinton. People are saying Sanders had a blind spot for minorities, but it was Hillary who had a black girl dragged out of her event while her white donors were literally hissing at her for bringing up BLM. Overall Sanders's point was that the best plan for minorities was a solid economic platform. Sanders polled better against Republicans because he was mostly unknown and nobody did any oppo or big ad campaigns against him. Sanders literally refuses to talk about issues of race when it's brought up in interviews and the "rising tide floats all boats/only war is the class war" ignores specifically racial issues like police brutality, affirmative action, etc. Hillary won with older minority voters because she's got a longer history working with minority political groups and Bernie won with young people in general who weren't exposed to the media circuses against her in the '90s. I am so looking forward to a year or two from now when people can stop whining about "Bernie would've done better!" No he wouldn't have. He would've done at best about the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 09:59
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Are you saying black people would rather vote for Trump than the guy who is addressing their issues? Strangely Sanders had consistently better head to head polls against Republican nominees than Clinton. People are saying Sanders had a blind spot for minorities, but it was Hillary who had a black girl dragged out of her event while her white donors were literally hissing at her for bringing up BLM. Overall Sanders's point was that the best plan for minorities was a solid economic platform with targeted aid to most disadvantaged areas. Last I heard voting wasn't actually mandatory. They may have voted for Bernie, they might have abstained. Who knows? Bernie lost, though, mainly because of his inability to court black and hispanic voters. Bernie may have marched for civil rights, but as Janet famously said: "What have you done for me lately?" Like I said, I like Bernie but he didn't actually engage meaningfully with the issues that people cared about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 10:50
|
|
|
Some Guy TT posted:I'm hesitant to call the alt-right Nazis even in spirit less because of their beliefs and more because of their tone. Actual Nazis tend to be really aggressive. They don't tone down their rhetoric or claim to have been "misinterpreted" because they genuinely believe that fascism is the truth and the light and the only way to save the white race. Even in a hypothetical apocalyptic future where the alt-right somehow gains power through the currently dying husk of the Republican Party, they're not going to whip off the mask and go "ah-ha! Our final plan was genocide all along!" They're just going to utilize the same brand of subtle racism that's not really racist because it lacks intent bullshit that the establishment right was doing before they showed up. Whiney baby nazis? Sure the most vocal fascists are aggressive and boorish but there are necessarily a bunch of quiet fascists who are too afraid to be angry and shouty but would absolutely support the angry fascists if they took power. And I don't really see a reason to discriminate, be they too cowardly to shout or too stupid to shut up, they're all monumental shitheads who don't really deserve sympathy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:That's not what I said though. We can enact policies to help them. To help them retrain and go back to school and find good jobs and ideally to rebuild the labor movement and unions in America. Rush Limbo posted:Like I said, I like Bernie but he didn't actually engage meaningfully with the issues that people cared about. Rush Limbo posted:It's kind of hard to make the case that white men are not garbage human beings when that composes near 100% of the alt right, even if you were to take that rhetoric at face value.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Sanders polled better against Republicans because he was mostly unknown and nobody did any oppo or big ad campaigns against him. Sanders literally refuses to talk about issues of race when it's brought up in interviews and the "rising tide floats all boats/only war is the class war" ignores specifically racial issues like police brutality, affirmative action, etc. Hillary won with older minority voters because she's got a longer history working with minority political groups and Bernie won with young people in general who weren't exposed to the media circuses against her in the '90s. I dunno, it seems pretty obvious to me that the vast majority of minority voters would have turned out for Bernie if he were the candidate regardless of him reaching out or not, because they're not clueless idiots and can spot the direct threat that a hypothetical Trump presidency poses to them and their families.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
OP, the answer is no.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
The last few pages are a nice encapsulation of before the trumpening.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Alt = Neo Right = Nazi
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I dunno, it seems pretty obvious to me that the vast majority of minority voters would have turned out for Bernie if he were the candidate regardless of him reaching out or not, because they're not clueless idiots and can spot the direct threat that a hypothetical Trump presidency poses to them and their families. Bernie was never going to get as many minority voters because early on he made the actually really horrible mistake of trying to tell African Americans that the real concern was economic issues and that improving that issue would improve their life. That pretty much doomed him from getting the same amount of minority support compared to Hillary. That exact line has been used by sleazy self centered politicians for a long loving time to try to get ____ group to tow the line. It almost has never lead to said minority actually getting anything. A rising tide only lifts all boats if the other guy isn't poking holes in the bottom of yours, after all. Ditto for any other minority group like women, Latino Americans, people who are LGBT, etc, etc that Trump just shat all over or used as a bludgeon against another group. Anyone that stopped to think about that whole fiasco tended to get a bit nervous about Bernie. I personally witnessed two people who are LGBT that backed off the Bernie fervor when they saw that along with one guy that was involved with BLM that started to shuffle about nervously and do the confidence man thing to try to justify why it wouldn't hurt him. Which was definitely a bad sign for his support post-primary if he won. Granted, Sanders may not have meant it that way and he did try to clarify on and walk his remarks back later on. But that's not the sort of comment you can just go "lol I changed my mind" or "I misspoke" on. Not in a national election or unless you're a Republican, at least. Edit: Also, the RWM blogosphere was already laying the groundwork to gin up some bombastic media to keep the outrage machine going if Bernie won the primary. It's just that most everyone that actually understood the political process understood that he had no chance of winning with the way he was campaigning in the primary. So places like Breitbart, Fox, Drudge, etc, etc basically limited themselves to slipping in comments about how bad socialism and communism are every now and then instead of doing the equivalent of "EMAILS, EMAILS, EMAILS!" all day long. Also, you think the poo poo Hillary had to endure was bad? Or the poo poo we're seeing now from groups like the alt-right and establishment Republicans. Just imagine if you got to see the Republicans using the specter of communism to go after Bernie and push their agenda. Hell, Newt Gingrich's comments about wanting to set up another House of Un-American Activities was almost certainly a result of Bernie running in the primary. Archonex fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Nov 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
Mans posted:Alt = Neo Nah, that isn't correct. A lot of neo nazis are alt right but they aren't synonyms. The alt right seems to have it's own home grown set of bigotries that intersect with nazi stuff in a lot of places but also have it's own whole set of garbage that didn't grow up out of nazism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Bernie was never going to get as many minority voters because early on he made the actually really horrible mistake of trying to tell African Americans that the real concern was economic issues and that improving that issue would improve their life. TLDR version The American people are stupid. We can't have socialism because the American people are exactly the same as they were in the 50s. Also I know someone who is LGBT who I assure you is real who didn't like Bernie. So he would have lost us the election. AKA Thirdway.txt .
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Bernie was never going to get as many minority voters because early on he made the actually really horrible mistake of trying to tell African Americans that the real concern was economic issues and that improving that issue would improve their life. Three things: 90% of democrats would've been ok with either bernie or hillary, trump had unarguably way more poo poo held against him and still won, and bernie shared some of trump's populist message where hillary didn't. This is all hindsight of course. We had no idea the rust belt was about to revolt, right until they did. We have to live with that mistake now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:TLDR version The American people are stupid. We can't have socialism because the American people are exactly the same as they were in the 50s. Also I know someone who is LGBT who I assure you is real who didn't like Bernie. So he would have lost us the election. AKA Thirdway.txt . Not to be pedantic, but someone cannot literally be all of those letters. I think it's reductive in this case to refer to a person this way because, for example, gay dudes have different political goals from black lesbians or Hispanic trans people and so on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
quote:TLDR version The American people are stupid. We can't have socialism because the American people are exactly the same as they were in the 50s. Also I know someone who is LGBT who I assure you is real who didn't like Bernie. So he would have lost us the election. AKA Thirdway.txt . Freakazoid_ posted:Three things: 90% of democrats would've been ok with either bernie or hillary, trump had unarguably way more poo poo held against him and still won, and bernie shared some of trump's populist message where hillary didn't. Yeah, okay. Just...Just respond to that with "No you're wrong." to all of that and call me a liar to boot. Whatever. I'll at least try to give replying to this poo poo a go. For the stuff I can respond too: People knew for a long time that the rust belt was pretty loving fed up with having to eat poo poo. I mean, holy poo poo, it's called the Rust Belt because it's defined by it's declining industry and general prosperity. It's part of how groups like the Tea Party and the Republican party as a whole keep getting to pull off the stunts they do without having to worry about getting smote by the constituency come the next election. Exploitative conservatives have been sucking the life out of the mid-western parts of the region for quite awhile now by pushing religious and divisionist rhetoric while the Democratic party either wrote large parts of the region off outside of getting the minimum amount of support, tended to fight losing battles in many states at the lower levels of government when people were there that did care, or were even just as bad as the Republicans in some areas. Trump just redirected that frustration towards racial hatred and loving over everyone else like any effective populist authoritarian does. It definitely wasn't unforeseen if you were watching some of the livestreams of the rally's that were taking place. What's surprising is that none of the pollsters or the opposition party thought to consider the implications of Trump doing a hosed up and hateful version of Obama's "Hope and Change" PR campaign to get some pretty screwed up or downtrodden people out to vote. As for Bernie? Look man, I liked Bernie too. I pushed for people in my area to vote for Bernie. But as time went on it became apparent that he wasn't going to win. He had some serious ground to make up on the messaging part of his campaign when he said and implied the stuff I mentioned. Hell, it was a big enough thing that major news publications were pointing out that people were a bit concerned about him because he phrased everything in economic terms instead of spending time addressing the racial concerns that people had. What's more, even during the primary it was obvious he wasn't that good at politics at that level. He wasn't liasing with many other members of the party and for a good portion of his campaign it was pretty clear that he wasn't as for supporting things downticket as Hillary was. That meant that Hillary was able to leverage a lot more support than he was within the party to get people to support her. Is that right? I don't loving know. But you have to at least be able to work with the party if you're going to operate on that level. If not so you can be effective management than so you can actually implement the change you're campaigning for within it to make things better for people down the line. Assuming he did win the primary though i'm pretty sure we'd be in a worse place if he lost the election. Instead of people shrieking about Hillary being corrupt 24/7 on TV you'd have had people trying to drum up another Red Scare during the election proper. Which would direct that hate and misdirection outwards away from one person towards helping to push policies that are pretty toxic to the general population. I mean, if you think that'd be a better situation for us then I don't know what to say. With the benefit of hindsight to assess everything that happened if I had to say Bernie or Hillary should have won the primary knowing that Trump had the support he had I'd take the poo poo we got slung at Hillary rather than something the Republicans could use to actually get people outside the party drummed up to gently caress Medicare, gently caress minority rights, and generally just do whatever the gently caress they wanted to do that they could tangentially link to socialism. At least now they'll have to fight for it on the PR end of things instead of getting a shrug from people who don't bother to fact check. Edit: All that being said though, if there's a definitive lesson to take from Trump's antics it's that populist rhetoric in the vein of Obama or the poo poo Trump pulled can flip an already dis-satisfied region that has a public perception of being caught between two parties. We saw a pretty clear case of this time around. Hopefully the Democrats actually take that into account come the next election season. Archonex fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
What evidince do you have that people would fall for this red square besides "SOCIALISM!" The email problem hurt Hillary because it played to the narrative that has dogged her for years that she cannot be trusted and that she feels that she is above the rules. Also the "SOCIALISM" bs had been tried on Obama and had actually made people partially numb to the charge. I rmeember that loving hungarain born fanancier putting out ads saying Obama wanted to recrated the Soviets sending in tanks into Hungary in 56, didn't win them the election. Also the populace loves medicare, the GOP telling people they were going to gently caress with it helped Obama win 2012. Calling it socialism would actually make socialism more appealing to the people who consider medicare their right. This pussyfooting third way bullshit needs to stop clinging on for life and die. Also Trump was sucessful because Hillary's main message wasn't what she would do. It was that she wasn't Trump. No one gives a gently caress about that, they want to know what you'll do, and Trump promised the people their jobs back, while being able to get people to stay home because, they didn't trust Hillary. Really I bet all you think is America is dead becausee the third way is dying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 04:02
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:What evidince do you have that people would fall for this red square besides "SOCIALISM!" Do you seriously need to ask this? I mean, loving really? The last time it came up on these forums it turned out that something like 80% of the polled evangelicals replied that they voted for Trump despite the fact that he's basically the anti-thesis of what they're supposed to represent. Never mind that many of them are by all accounts glad to shriek any lie they get from trusted news sites on Twitter or any public media source. The politicians in the party swivel on a lockstep to support a narrative that lets them keep stripping the social policies down to the bone, even if that position was in direct contradiction to what they said a year ago or is downright vile. Conspiracy media blogs and sites like Infowars and Breitbart are being sourced by major media outlets like CNN --- Outlets that are trusted by the average voter that isn't so far up their own rear end that they can display empathy for their fellow human beings. Do you not think that they'd have an easy time pushing that narrative? I mean, holy gently caress. Really? Or are you just trying to be contrarian here? This entire election happened at least partially because the media is loving terrible at investigating a story and reporting on it with integrity and honesty. Like it or not the Republicans have a huge edge organizationally and in being entrenched when it comes to pushing a message or narrative when compared to Democrats. Of course that'd be an issue if Bernie somehow managed to win the primary. There's a reason why you had chuckle fucks like Newt Gingrich making the comments they made when the hype for Bernie was starting to reach it's peak. Archonex fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Do you seriously need to ask this? I mean, loving really? Ok now all I am getting is. "GOP IS UNBEATABLE". I mean if the screams of socialism was all they needed to defeat Bernie than their loses to Obama must have been Obama mind controlling people, because they used the socialism accusations on him. Alos the evangelicals didn't win Trump the election what one him the eleection was rust belt voters either voting for him because he actually campagined on helping them, or staying home because voters couldn't trust Hillary. Note the reason they couldn;t trust her started long before the election began. Bernie had voters trust because he actually appeared earnest. Seriously your arguments are like the classical neoliberal thirdway arguemnts. "wee can;t give the GOP a way to attack us" "The GOP was always going to win" Americans are too fearful and dumb for us to win". .
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:Ok now all I am getting is. "GOP IS UNBEATABLE". I mean if the screams of socialism was all they needed to defeat Bernie than their loses to Obama must have been Obama mind controlling people, because they used the socialism accusations on him. Alos the evangelicals didn't win Trump the election what one him the eleection was rust belt voters either voting for him because he actually campagined on helping them, or staying home because voters couldn't trust Hillary. Note the reason they couldn;t trust her started long before the election began. Bernie had voters trust because he actually appeared earnest. Seriously your arguments are like the classical neoliberal thirdway arguemnts. "wee can;t give the GOP a way to attack us" "The GOP was always going to win" Americans are too fearful and dumb for us to win". . You know, i'm really sorry to say this but if that's all you got from those massive walls of text then you're honestly too loving stupid to engage with. The bolded part wasn't what I was saying at all and I don't even know how the gently caress to reply to that nonsense except to say that you missed how I pointed out that I already mentioned that I supported Bernie's policies. Also that Bernie probably wasn't the dream candidate people wanted him to be in terms of his actual electoral potential, only for you to deflect off onto a tangent. Ditto for the evangelical thing you said since it's running in direct contradiction to what the exit polls say. They're a long-standing major voting bloc for the GOP and if you don't believe that they helped Trump and the Republican party as a whole out a lot on both the messaging and electoral end of things then we're literally working in different realities here. Edit: It's probably not going to accomplish anything, but to elaborate further: My point wasn't "THE GOP IS UNBEATABLE! DEHUMANIZE AND FACE TO THE ALT-RIGHT AND AUTHORITARIANISM!". It was at least partially that we need a candidate that can outpace and out-maneuver the bullshit they're going to throw on the national level of politics. Neither Hillary nor Bernie were likely to do that. We know how they went for Hillary, and there were definitely indications there that they were gearing up for Bernie. Obama managed to outpace the nonsense that was slung at him by being charismatic as hell and being good at getting people hyped to vote. The latter of which Trump also was good at, which almost certainly gave him an edge. Both Hillary and Bernie had issues either with outputting that same level of policy-based persuasiveness or getting people enthused to vote. One had one thing and the other had the other thing. But each of them didn't have both. Optimally speaking Hillary would have patched that issue by pulling an Obama and offering Bernie some sort of prominent staff position. When she ran against Obama in the primary that helped bring her constituency in to vote for him when they were acting the same way many Bernie supporters were in the wake of the primary. It would have helped to bring in the die-hards and moderates who did a write-in for Bernie or voted for Trump for whatever justifications they could cook up. Which would have probably secured her a win given how close the race was in many states since she'd be reaching out to two vastly different parts of the Democratic party and independents out there. But that was probably never going to happen because holy poo poo by all accounts Hillary's campaign was arrogant as hell in their predictions as far as the outcome of the election. They even had a former president telling them they were loving up and they ignored him. Archonex fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
People are already drumming up another Red Scare and it started about 2 minutes after Bernie announced. The rest of your posts are just repeating the same lies that liberals have been drowning in for over a year so I don't know how you get so indignant about someone else not taking you seriously
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
spotlessd posted:People are already drumming up another Red Scare and it started about 2 minutes after Bernie announced. The rest of your posts are just repeating the same lies that liberals have been drowning in for over a year so I don't know how you get so indignant about someone else not taking you seriously Maybe if you had a more substantive response than "You lie!" I wouldn't be so indignant? Because it seems like you're trying to dodge the issue and just shout down someone because you don't want to hear what they have to say rather than engage honestly with them. I mean holy poo poo so far i've seen three separate people try to deflect off of my remarks by giving a rambling and poorly typed message/a one to three line post that basically tries to hand-wave things away with no evidence whatsoever, misrepresent what i'm saying to the point of outright fabrications, or mislabel me as a neo-liberal so they don't have to engage with what i've actually written. I'm entirely justified in being a bit frustrated at that, and gently caress you if you think I don't have the right. Given that I fall into one of the targeted minority groups that the evil bastards that Trump is filling his staff out with want to go after my life is most likely about to be quantifiably worse because of the outcome of this election. If not because of that then definitely because i'm stuck living in a pretty backwards area socially that has a number of pretty dreadful people that have been emboldened by seeing him and the cretins that supported him put into office. So i'm pretty sure i'm entitled to get upset and point out that there were some severe mistakes and issues that both Democratic candidates and the party as a whole overlooked when people keep trying to tip-toe around them. I gotta say though, the neo-liberal thing is especially pretty loving rich given that i've outright pointed out that I liked Bernie Sander's policies and ideas but thought he had no chance of getting elected as I saw how his campaign progressed and how he initially handled major issues like minority concerns. And guess what? He didn't. Theory craft all you want but at the end of the day he didn't have the chops to get through the primary. Never mind that i've spent plenty of text and time pointing out that Hillary was pretty bad at campaigning past the primary as well. Though i'll admit that like everyone else I figured she could at least handle Donald loving Trump of all people. Edit: So this is on topic to the thread: Those mistakes I mentioned are part of what's making the alt-right at least a momentary issue nationally, since Trump used them as a platform to get into office. In terms of what they can actually do they're not worse than the establishment...Yet. The fact that they helped Trump get a win is probably going to have some minor to potentially major influence on establishment Republican policies going forwards. However if the Trump cabinet and presidency can't shore up the successes they've had so far (along with all the advocacy organizations that support the alt-right's horrible views) then they'll probably be relegated back to being a silent minority group that gets the occasional dog whistle and horrible policy thrown to them in Republican held states. This is why a lot of these same alt-right organizations and individuals are stepping out at the moment. They're trying to use the success of the election to build public and private support to stick around as a public entity after being shoved into the dark corners of the internet and society for so long. That's why you've got an increase in the KKK doing work in many of the more downtrodden areas of the US. That's why one of the more vicious founders of the alt-right went on CNN thinking that they could espouse their views about people of Jewish descent (Because let's face it, you don't get to be what's basically a neo-nazi in all but name without being a bit dim.) and wouldn't get some of their remarks quoted at them (IE: "One wonders if these people are people at all, or instead soulless golems.") by an interviewer after he called it hate-filled garbage, etc, etc. I'd say that the big concern in the short term is the establishment Republicans who see the alt-right as a plank to getting elected or pushing their own policy by attaching riders that appeal to them. The alt-right may pontificate and scheme but at the end of the day the establishment and remaining tea party Republicans are the ones that hold many of the offices. The alt-right doesn't really have direct or a majority of political power outside of Trump and his appointees and Republicans that want to cynically use them. And given how much of a narcissist he seems to be Trump himself would probably drop them like a live grenade the second it looks like they've outlived their usefulness. They've got to stay appealing to these people, and really, when you get down to it pushing a message of hatred is pretty loving unappealing people to most people outside their group. It's a toss-up over what wins: Whether how disgusting they are to most Americans wins the day or whether they can use the next four years to make themselves a stand-by political bloc for the Republicans. Some alt-righters and their associated groups seem to be trying to do this by angling themselves into being a new alternative to the aging baby boomer base. Which is probably their only hope of any long term success and also a pretty loving terrifying prospect if they can pull it off. If they pull it off they can grow the base while the last baby boomers die off and the Republicans continue doubling down all the while. Long term the alt-right is way, way, way, loving worse than the establishment. If they can stick around in a coherent and organized form similar to how they are now then eventually they'll be able to replace politicians at the higher branches of government. That's literally how we ended up with many of the sleazier and crazier Republicans we have now. By then they'll probably have had a chance to refine their messaging and tactics to make it far more appealing to people who really ought to know better. Archonex fucked around with this message at 07:41 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
Your position is absurd and untenable. I sympathize with the others who actually did read your unbearable posts in their entirety because in addition to just being a not particularly insightful summary of disingenuous arguments being made by Clinton supporters in every thread on this forum, your criticism of Sanders directly contradicts the reality of what has taken place in the handful of nations where a populist Left alternative actually has emerged and defeated their respective Trumps in addition to the very recent history of American electoral politics, in which the invocation of socialism has largely lost its power. Mainstream liberals crying about how they were failed by America are now the heirs of the kind of virulent anti-left sentiment you presume would have defeated Sanders and its not the least bit obvious that Trump could have delivered that line anywhere near as effectively as Clinton did, and its even less obvious that he could have succeeded on a populist platform against a left populist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
Going to break this up since it's almost one long rambling run-on paragraph. Sorry if that's annoying but I can't parse this otherwise.spotlessd posted:Your position is absurd and untenable. I sympathize with the others who actually did read your unbearable posts in their entirety because in addition to just being a not particularly insightful summary of disingenuous arguments being made by Clinton supporters in every thread on this forum, your criticism of Sanders directly contradicts the reality of what has taken place in the handful of nations where a populist Left alternative actually has emerged and defeated their respective Trumps Okay, first of all, nice passive aggressiveness there.  Second of all, we don't live in another country. We live in the US, which has it's own unique political and social climate. Just as those nations have their own political and social climate that help determine how events might go in their country both we and they have a nascent fascist movement that's quite unique compared to other groups out there in other countries. The Golden Dawn in Greece for instance is an entirely different beast both operationally and politically than the alt-right is in the US. Of course when I say this i'm assuming by "defeating their Trumps" you meant fascists. Since Trump is a pretty unique phenomenon all by himself when taken independently of the people he's courted. Was there some sort of secret Donald Trump cloning project that went into effect while I was focused on the US election? This is of course also setting aside the fact that you didn't actually name any countries where this outcome you described happened. Which I should warn you: If you're expecting someone to defend their position when you give vague examples of nebulous regions where you're proven right then you're poo poo out of luck because that's basically impossible. I'm basically arguing against the ghost of proof here. quote:in addition to the very recent history of American electoral politics, in which the invocation of socialism has largely lost its power. Well, yes. It has lost it's power. The Cold War and the politicking then helped to put one of the big nails in its coffin. It doesn't help that barring Obama the democratic establishment seems to have wanted to go with third way democrats and other similar individuals as of late. The circular firing squad in the constituency that sees people shouted down and eventually being disgusted with the group as a whole after trying to engage with their fellow party members whenever they lose an election certainly doesn't help either. quote:Mainstream liberals crying about how they were failed by America are now the heirs of the kind of virulent anti-left sentiment you presume would have defeated Sanders and its not the least bit obvious that Trump could have delivered that line anywhere near as effectively as Clinton did, and its even less obvious that he could have succeeded on a populist platform against a left populist. I'm sorry there's a significant non-zero chance that i'm going to lose my insurance and possibly even end up dead if things go extremely poorly for me. I'm sorry i'm actually afraid for my safety where I live and don't even have the economic means to hightail it to somewhere far safer because the economy has been pillaged for years on end and left me unable to get a steady job in my field. Does that qualify America as failing me? I mean, should the absolute worse case scenario happen I certainly won't be able to ask for your sage advice on whether I have the right to be upset given my likely position at the time. I'd like to know ahead of time so I know whether I have the right to be afraid for my safety and outraged at the bullshit that people like you come up with to avoid engaging with other people and actually doing effective work towards changing anything. Also, again, fantasizing about how Bernie would "totes have beaten that orange skinned cheeto elemental" is literally just that, fantasizing. Even if you entertain the theory: He couldn't get out of the Democratic primary! A place where the gloves are on compared to what the Republicans will do to your candidate of choice. That doesn't speak well for his chances, overall. Especially taken with the rest of the issues he failed to surmount. Also, also, loving lol at "anti-left sentiment". You can keep saying this poo poo but just because you say it doesn't make it true. I want to see the wage gap closed, see everyone get better health care, see minority protections get advanced to a higher level, and generally would prefer if everyone could get along with each other. Unfortunately it seems that that makes me anti-left. What the gently caress ever, man. I'm done. Archonex fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 08:05
|
|
|
Freakazoid_ posted:Three things: 90% of democrats would've been ok with either bernie or hillary, trump had unarguably way more poo poo held against him and still won, and bernie shared some of trump's populist message where hillary didn't. This is true of any Democratic candidate, though, to some extent at least. The right is always going to accuse you of being a socialist - they called Bill Clinton a socialist for gently caress's sake - and some disaffected element of the left is always going to do the circular firing squad thing. The base of the left is composed of people who are accustomed to and aggrieved by being oppressed and having no power - they do not trust institutions and when they undermine the candidacy of the most leftist candidacy they can realistically get, in their mind they are just undermining an establishment politician (a powerful person, in other words). It doesn't help that the left, and in particular the Democratic party in the US, does not offer much in the way of actual power to its base, anymore. It offers them protection: from discrimination, from poverty, and so on. AA is right and good but no one likes thinking they got into college because of their race. Minimum wage (or basic income) is nice but no one wants to think themselves dependent on the whim of the electorate for their livelihood. This is why Third Way is a lovely ideology (if it even is an ideology) and failure. Meanwhile the base of the right is generally composed both of people who have some measure of power in their personal lives, or failing that know very well what they're missing and crave it very much. The kind of power the right offers people is mainly the power to oppress their social inferiors, but that's still power after all. And so the left is at a disadvantage to the right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
That's a lot of wishful thinking you have there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 09:34
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That's a lot of wishful thinking you have there. If the Democratic party can't even snag the more pragmatic leftists in the electorate though, they're hosed. They have no reason to exist at that point. The center is dead. So to that extent I think my reasoning does a decent job of explaining why they have trouble winning elections.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
Archonex posted:The last time it came up on these forums it turned out that something like 80% of the polled evangelicals replied that they voted for Trump despite the fact that he's basically the anti-thesis of what they're supposed to represent. Archonex posted:The alt-right doesn't really have direct or a majority of political power outside of Trump and his appointees and Republicans that want to cynically use them. Their real power is more as an intimidating dogpile, and as a cultural force that's doing an amazing job of promoting racism in a way that's very tech-savvy and aimed at a younger audience.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Evangelicals would vote for Anton LeVay if he promised to put someone that would overturn Roe v. Wade in an empty SCOTUS seat. Though this is ironic since instead of being the moral paragons they claim to be the reality seems to be that the evangelical bloc is so thoroughly whipped by the party that they'll vote for whatever so long as they can push loving with women, people who are LGBT, or whatever horrible unifying poo poo they've come up with in any given year. quote:The alt-right is electorally insignificant and Trump's positioned himself in a way that he can unceremoniously dump them (like he already kind of did with that Richard Spencer event when they made their Nazi fetishism a bit too obvious) with zero consequence. Which is what that post dealt with. The alt-right has been trying to position themselves as a "reasonable" alternative to baby boomers from what i've seen of late. Whether they can pull it off or not is a topic all to itself but I wouldn't be so quick to write them off regardless of the low chances of Trump keeping them around long enough for it to happen. A good portion of the alt-right is tied up into the RWM media machine too. And the media sources the right uses pretty much influence policy and how a good chunk of the constituency approaches a given issue. See places like Breitbart which went full on nazi for awhile during this election as an example. That means that at the very least they have an influence on the discourse in the party. Outside of potentially Trump and part of his cabinet they don't have direct (or at least noticeably direct) political power in the party yet. They can pitch ideas and definitely pressure and tempt Republicans into using them cynically in exchange for relevance but at most that's it. However that's the same trick that the Tea Party used to stay relevant long enough to catapult themselves to the foreground of American politics and replace a bunch of establishment types. So i'd say that the alt-right is a definite concern over a longer period of time depending on how things go. Archonex fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Necroing this thread because I've been seeing some interesting developments in evolution of the alt-right. I honest think the term is dying off and a rebrand is coming because Richard Spencer overplayed his loving hand with the NPI meeting in Washington, and now the reddit army of Trump supporting white nationalist redpillers are scrambling to scream WE'RE NOT ALT-RIGHT. Think what you want of these intelligence, these kids have grown up being bombarded with marketing and messaging online 24/7 and they're very smart about branding. They know what doesn't play. Which is why you can now find thousands of posts being like "yeah immigrants are destroying white society and the jews are responsible, but that isn't alt-right, thats just speaking the truth." in places like r/The_Donald and 4chan. They also realize that the overwhelming majority of their peer group hates them and their fringe ideas, so their prime tactic is to deny what they are and focus on "waking people up". That's why an altright online cultural figure (the only one I think, besides Milo) like Sam Hyde can have a twitter feed full of posts about how he hates jews and nonwhites and his supporters will just say "he's not alt right, he's just a freethinker!!" without blinking. It's not doublethink, they're just lying to your face cause they know how vile and hateful their ideology is. Expect them to find a new label soon for their New and Improved twist on how hating others makes you a good person. Or maybe they'll just continue their current tactic of #pizzagating us into oblivion, since almost all of the social accounts pushing that narrative were tweeting nonstop Trump and altright propaganda before they switched to delicious 'za.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
the black husserl posted:Which is why you can now find thousands of posts being like "yeah immigrants are destroying white society and the jews are responsible, but that isn't alt-right, thats just speaking the truth." in places like r/The_Donald and 4chan. They also realize that the overwhelming majority of their peer group hates them and their fringe ideas, so their prime tactic is to deny what they are and focus on "waking people up". That's why an altright online cultural figure (the only one I think, besides Milo) like Sam Hyde can have a twitter feed full of posts about how he hates jews and nonwhites and his supporters will just say "he's not alt right, he's just a freethinker!!" without blinking. It's not doublethink, they're just lying to your face cause they know how vile and hateful their ideology is. It's not alt-right, it's using the framework provided by the identity politics-obsessed left. Specifically, the idea that disproportionate representation of an ethnic or religious group compared to their share of the general population is all the evidence you need to level claims of deception or trickery by an ethnic or religious group, and demand that said group answer for the real or imagined crimes that led to this outcome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
From what I've read, the alt-right are basically economics leftists with a fetish for white identity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's not alt-right, it's using the framework provided by the identity politics-obsessed left. Specifically, the idea that disproportionate representation of an ethnic or religious group compared to their share of the general population is all the evidence you need to level claims of deception or trickery by an ethnic or religious group, and demand that said group answer for the real or imagined crimes that led to this outcome. I'm glad that you think slavery was imagined, friend. Do you think the holocaust happened?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Guess who twitter unbanned tonight! https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/807758146777255936
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
The idea that Richard Spencer overplayed his hand seems weird in a way. It's not like he ever tried to conceal the fact that he's a single-issue white supremacist, it's just that nobody paid attention until the Nazi salutes showed up on camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
stone cold posted:I'm glad that you think slavery was imagined, friend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 08:18
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:He said real or imagined. Like slavery vs. blood libel. So do reparations therefore not need to be made, since on the left equivocated the two, not made clear they in fact are discrete concepts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 10:08
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:The idea that Richard Spencer overplayed his hand seems weird in a way. It's not like he ever tried to conceal the fact that he's a single-issue white supremacist, it's just that nobody paid attention until the Nazi salutes showed up on camera. Wait, that's who they unbanned? The "hail Trump" guy? Jesus loving Christ. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 10:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
ManlyGrunting posted:Wait, that's who they unbanned? The "hail Trump" guy? Apparently this guy isn't as bad as Milo according to Jack Dorsey.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 11:15
|
|