SUK ZONE: it's all a pointless exercise and you're just screaming into the void

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > SUK ZONE: it's all a pointless exercise and you're just screaming into the void

«‹›13 »

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

anime was right posted:

i am not editing any of that because i am on three hours of sleep.

everyone sucks, hillary got a poo poo deal, but she still could have threaded the needle. america is sexist and i dont think it was her time because of it, but she tried anyway, for better or for worse, and was this close to doing it. but she didn't. she holds some responsibility, but not all of it.

thats my effort post, cya.

hillary didnt lose b/c of misogyny

i can't stand this loving thinking. i've heard it multiple times today.

she lost b/c she's a terrible loving status quo warhawk candidate who is historically unlikeable and represents the worst aspects of american politics

# ¿ Nov 10, 2016 03:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 10:31

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

anime was right posted:

its part of the reason she lost and why she made some of the choices she did. and i think it affected her career much more than it did anyone at the voting booth imo.

but it was still a handicap, and without it she probably coulda won. not because a bunch of dudes are voting against a woman, but because it informed and affected literally every decision she made in her entire life.

she could have won by being a better candidate too, tho.

no she is uniquely terrible. a man that has done the things she has done would be equally villified. trying to paint this as misogyny is ridiculous.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2016 03:20

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

if misogyny is your primary takeaway for why clinton has lost you are not loving paying attention

some of the criticisms of clinton are actually quite legitimate! stop plugging your ears and screaming la la la whenever someone criticizes your abuela. there's a reason why people loving hate her guts and it's not because she's a woman.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2016 03:21

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Cubey posted:

she was unlikeable because republicans had a 20+ year smear campaign against her

the smear campaign was predicated on complete bullshit that they could never support with facts but that does not matter. just in my house two people who are lifelong d voters did not vote clinton because she was 'corrupt'. for rust belters who already felt that the democrats had failed them, hearing this poo poo about her for that long absolutely had to have been a major driving force for them just staying home.

even if clinton is not corrupt, she still has the extreme appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest when she gets giant bags of money rained down on her from wall street

that type of behavior should not be considered acceptable for anyone seeking high public office

# ¿ Nov 10, 2016 03:54

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

I think enough time has passed to talk about how scapegoating Russia and painting Trump as an agent of the Kremlin was a dumb idea.

this was their diversionary tactic for the leaks

but yes it was incredibly stupid

every stupid loving media organization including npr et al were fanning these totally unfounded russia conspiracy theories it was farcical

also there's a bunch of stupid loving articles today about russia celebrating the trump victory lmao you've lost you dont have to continue the stupid russian conspiracy theory you idiots

# ¿ Nov 10, 2016 05:06

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Timeless Appeal posted:

The trend of people going "It's not that America's racist, it's that she failed to court midwestern voters" is dumb. Yes, obviously in hindsight she should have done that. What people are ignoring is that it's Trump. It's a man who a month ago the sheer notion of becoming president was thought as impossible with numerous sexual assault claims. A person who called for banning the immigration of Muslim Americans. A person who openly mocked a disabled reporter. A person who showed profound ignorance every time he stepped on a debate stage.

Do you remember how the 47% tape or Dukakis in the tank or Dean's yell are remembered for helping tank their campaigns?

The shock is around the fact that none of that poo poo mattered whatsoever. The shock is around that Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio would have probably done just as well.

And like there are a dozen things you can nitpick about. If those campaign tanking moments actually were campaign tanking moments or the fact that the worst of the Trump presidency is probably going to be based on him being a Republican more than anything else or if people should've known better about who the people in our country are.

But people are shocked because they assumed that people would rise to the occasion or at least not vote for that guy. And that's not what happened. They voted for a guy openly hostile to women and people of color and Muslims and who was more than willing to destroy the premise of peaceful transfer of power if he didn't get his way and may very really pursue trying to jail his opponent. And going "WELL ACTUALLY..." and simply talking about Hilary's failure to assume almost every single poll that showed her strategy was working was wrong doesn't make you some amazing realist. It makes you a dummy who's failing to understand why actual real human beings are upset.

the answer you are looking for is that clinton was an absolutely terrible candidate. doubling down on the status quo message in the 2016 climate was a gargantuan mistake.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2016 05:08

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

That DICK! posted:

You know I think something that's weirdly stayed with me as a sign of what was wrong with Hillary in a nutshell, was her emphasis on the oft-used phrase "love trumps hate" In retrospect a terrible phrase in any way but the way she pronounced it was never tongue in cheek. It wasn't "LOVE trumps HATE." She very clearly pronounced it as "love Trump's hate." So it always sounded to me like "hey thank god this guy is so Fuckin Awful because now we're gonna win!" Which is a bad message for 9 or so reasons

remember "make america whole again"? lmao who the gently caress feeds this stupid poo poo to her campaign
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJ1t-wikQNE

# ¿ Nov 10, 2016 05:17

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Pomp posted:

I don't hate the rust belt for rust belt for grabbing on to lies but I'm disappointed in them for not seeing through it and also Hillary for ignoring them.

Blughggh

why should they be glad for the champion of nafta and tpp and permanent normalized trade relations with china

# ¿ Nov 11, 2016 01:33

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Karl Barks posted:

i work for a uni and the dean sent out an email that said this election is proof we need to focus more on educating people. good poo poo.

this nauseating patronizing attitude reeks from her supporters to the candidate herself

# ¿ Nov 11, 2016 01:35

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

MaxxBot posted:

The fact that this forum which previously had a reputation as being uber-left politically had devolved into a hotbed of shameless DNC shills had started to slowly drive me insane, the fact that this did a complete 180 after her loss is probably one of the few silver linings of this shitshow.

the CTR checks stopped coming in

# ¿ Nov 11, 2016 02:21

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

just a reminder that in 2008 obama and the democrats owned congress and had a mandate for change

they proceeded to spend the next 2 years licking the boots of wall street and having the corporations write the healthcare reform law

blame the democrats for a trump presidency and congress

# ¿ Nov 11, 2016 04:44

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Jenner posted:

she took 90% of Bernie's platform and made it her own.

hillary campaigned on villifying trump and a green cartoon frog more than pushing any populist policy

# ¿ Nov 11, 2016 14:40

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

also hillary and her media cohorts spent much of the primaries attacking bernie's populist platforms such as universal college education. people aren't as stupid as you think to forget that in such a short time.

# ¿ Nov 11, 2016 14:46

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

loquacius posted:

I feel like Hillary adopting Bernie's platform was a rhetorical weapon to shut down people trying to call her centrist rather than an actual platform of policy stances she believed in and wanted to sell people on

this is the same reason why she distanced herself from TPP when she's been such a strong advocate for it and previous trade deals

she screams lying weather vane politician and has no authenticity. she's blatantly opportunistic.

she wants to be mealy mouthed and amorphous on her positions. just look at her initial statements about her stance on the XL pipeline.

# ¿ Nov 11, 2016 14:59

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

even when clinton came out against the TPP it was either very late or after the vote to give the president fast track authority. she either wanted more time to focus group what her position should be or she wanted to only be against it when it no longer mattered.

# ¿ Nov 11, 2016 15:04

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

if clinton was elected, obama would have passed TPP during his lame duck session

one of the gaffes during the campaign season was when a hillary supporter told others that hillary wasn't REALLY against the tpp and it was just a public facade

only a rube would think she was actually against the TPP

# ¿ Nov 11, 2016 15:05

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Peel posted:

silver lining to all this is maybe democrats and 'progressives' will stop whining about 'neoliberal' lol

they didn't learn after losing congress in 2010 after winning an overwhelming mandate in 2008

they spent their mandate being corporate stooges and handing out giant favors to wall street

obama publically still wanted to push tpp through the primary season and general election

i have little faith

# ¿ Nov 11, 2016 15:41

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

BUSH 2112 posted:

maybe i'm just being a douche here, but this poo poo is driving me loving insane. a dude who didn't win the popular vote, has no experience, was colluding or at least complicit in the illegal hacking of a loving political party by a foreign country, and has said and proposed horrid bullshit is the president elect. they're treating this loving rear end in a top hat with kid gloves, and the media is completely uninterested. "well it turns out russia admitted that is was in contact with trump and his staffers the whole time, now look at this guy who photoshops himself into some d-list tart's photos! that's news!"

seriously, gently caress all of these people. i feel like the liberal version of a goddamn breitbart reader, how the gently caress is this all going down without incident? i honestly can't believe that it's all getting swept under the rug by everyone with any power.

there was no popular vote. stop deluding yourself and using this as some dumb excuse for outrage. people will vote differently in an electoral college system than they would in a popular vote system. a conservative in california who voted johnson or stayed home might have instead voted trump if it was a popular vote.
experience is a stupid loving metric for politics. platform and ideology are what matter.
where is your evidence that trump was complicit in the illegal hacking of the democrats by russia? where is your evidence that russian hackers were the source of the leaks? that's right. you have zero evidence.
the media has been vicious toward trump during the election and made poo poo up from whole cloth like claiming he was the manchurian russian candidate.
what is wrong with the trump campaign talking with russia? I would be far more concerned about saudi and other foreign nationals making massive donations to the clinton foundation.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 01:19

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Venom Snake posted:

saying experience doesn't matter is dumb. Bernie is good because Bernie is progressive AND experienced. Saying experience doesn't matter gets you Tom Cottons and Marco Rubios

so you would support an experienced candidate who is the polar opposite of your preferred platform vs a candidate that's never been a politician that aligns with your platform?

of course you wouldn't. because experience doesn't loving matter.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 01:30

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

etalian posted:

A reminder that Hill folk accused Bernie of being a weak inexperienced politician even though he won more contested elections than Yaas Queen and has the highest favorability rating of any politician in the US right now.

bernie didnt have the proper foreign policy experience that involved supporting absurdly terrible american wars and rightwing coup governments

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 01:32

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

some people might feel a little resentment when the experience you point to is abominable and reprehensible and then you try to use it to lord it over a candidate's supposed inexperience

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 01:34

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

the person complaining about no experience was complaining that voters voted for a candidate that had "no experience" vs a candidate with tons of experience.

this is an utterly ridiculous complaint if you reverse the situation and consider a liberal candidate w/ no political experience vs a conservative candidate with tons of political experience. if you were a hillary supporter and in the above scenario wouldn't vote for the conservative candidate, then shut the gently caress up about the winning candidate having "no experience"

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 01:36

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Can we talk now about how the idea that "demographics are destiny" is basically unreconstructed race science?

it turns out taking your voters for granted and selling them down the river is not a good long-term political strategy

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 01:51

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

WINNINGHARD posted:

Hillary Clinton is incompetent on a good day. She voted for the Iraq war, the biggest unforced error in foreign policy since the vietnam war. In her defense, her backers said, everyone else in congress was doing it too. Do you want someone like that as a chief executive? Someone who does what's expedient, instead of what's right?

more democrats in congress at the time voted against the iraq war instead of for it. hillary pushed for the iraq war against her own party.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 05:12

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Deki posted:

In all fairness, wasn't it an open secret that funds for rebuilding NY were traded for Hillary's cooperation RE: Iraq?

I'm not misremembering that, am I?

this sounds like something hillary supporters manufactured out of whole cloth to justify her terrible vote for the iraq war

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 15:54

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Jenner posted:

This is one of the things that really makes me sour by the way. That liberals fall in line, are more willing to cooperate, and try to play nice with others. When Democrats controlled the House and Senate at the end of the Bush years we not only worked with Republicans and let then pass legislation but we, after a bit of bullshit on our end, actually accepted his Supreme Court Justice nominee.

Democrats had their chance in the 2008 congress. They had gigantic almost super-majorities in both the house and senate and the presidency. They proceeded to use this overwhelming mandate for change and an economic crisis to be what ralph nader predicted: corporate stooges. They spent their 'political capital' licking the boot of wall st and the health and pharma corporations.

There are dnc sycophants that will now come out of the woodwork and cry about the majority in congress not being that big and that those darned republicans were just so obstructionist. This is just so loving ridiculous it boggles my mind.

Look at this poo poo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
Party standings in the Senate for most of this Congress
57 Democrats
2 Independents, caucusing with Democrats
41 Republicans

Final party distribution in the House of Representatives
Democratic Party: 255 members.
Republican Party: 179 members.

Democrats had ~58% voting share in both chambers.

Democrat sycophants are literally arguing that democrats can't do anything meaningful and will roll over and die and just be corporate stooges unless they get over 60% in both houses. It's loving incredulous.

Democrats deserved this loss.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 16:14

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

etalian posted:

She claimed contributions were just a reward for her doing such a good job after 9/11.

I guess she failed to mention her now released private speeches in which she said it everyone's fault the market crashed, not the greed of wall street being the primary cause.

krugman would agree! in his series of anti-bernie articles during the primaries, this shithead wrote:

quote:

Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on 'shadow banks' like Lehman Brothers that weren't necessarily that big.

Taibbi slams this fuckhead down:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-the-banks-should-be-broken-up-20160408

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 16:24

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

licking the boot of wall st and not criminally indicting ANYONE for the 2008 crisis or the loving robo-foreclosure scandal is entirely on obama and the democrats. you can't loving fall back and try to blame the republicans here.

there were loving criminal cases there. federal judges were publically appalled when the obama doj and sec were just going after fines for mass fraud and wondered why they weren't going after criminal charges based on the cases for the fines.

people are loving pissed about it and the wall st financial institutions are one of the most unpopular institutions in the united states if not the most unpopular

and then you push a candidate who is funded gigantically by wall st and got millions of dollars of in giant bags of money of personal enrichment raining down on her head and put her at the top of the ticket

just lmao at anyone crying over the dems losing

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 16:31

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Peel posted:

i'm sympathetic to this point of view but you do actually have to reckon with the existence of the filibuster if you want to take this line, rather than just taking a percentage like a power level. i find the decision not to remove it understandable even if it turned out an error in hindsight.

but of course, when they passed the healthcare law it was via a procedural trick to avoid the filibuster, which should have been taken as an opportunity to make it less corporate and more effective since they no longer needed every single vote. and so on. there's no escaping the compromised nature of the 2008 congress

the bush presidency never had as large of a majority in congress and were able to successfully push their agenda.

the democrats showed their true colors in 2008 and had their chance. they hosed it up.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 16:36

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

clinton wouldve lost a popular vote election if there was a popular vote election

the margin that hillfolk are crying about is loving tiny

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 16:41

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

loquacius posted:

Remembering that now Paul Krugman will never be rewarded for his bootlicking hackjob bullshit has been a light in the darkness for me a couple times this week

I mean, there's no telling how much of the poo poo we're in now is the direct result of his efforts, but at least he's not gonna get sec treasury for it

i felt extraordinary relief upon realizing this too

krugman has the most punchable face in media

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 16:42

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

pathetic little tramp posted:

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong.

What country are you from? It's understandable you might not know the sheer level of Republican obstructionism if you're not from here, but they filibustered their rear end off from 2007 to 2012, 380 total filibusters if I remember right. edit: We went six years as a nation with no budget. Their feelings get really hurt when the voters don't vote them in.

Republicans can get laws passed with a near majority, democrats require a super majority + a few to get past the blue dogs. That's the advantage of one party being an authoritarian party and another being a compromise party.

so the democrats have no choice but to be corporate stooges unless they get significantly OVER a supermajority? somehow, I think they would remain corporate stooges even with total control of the reins. remind me why anyone should vote for them again?

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 16:44

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

loquacius posted:

Honestly the EC seems undemocratic and super outdated in 21st century society and I can't think of a reason it should continue existing

it at least means that the democrats can't ignore the rust belt voters they betrayed and patronizingly label them as the blue firewall

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 16:48

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Patter Song posted:

Current rough estimate of final %s: Clinton ~48.5, Trump ~46.5, putting Trump closer to McCain territory than even Romney territory. Clinton +2 would mean that the polls showing Clinton +3 were basically right, and that the problem was that Clinton's votes were so grossly misapportioned that even a pretty resounding 2 point lead would leave her seriously underwater in the Electoral College.

REPEAT AFTER ME: THERE WAS NO POPULAR VOTE

people would vote differently in an electoral college system than in a national popular vote. see all those millions of votes johnson got? a lot of them would be gone in a national popular vote. perhaps many more people would vote in non-swing states.

also the polls were consistently wrong on a per-state level. the polls were not "basically right"

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 16:51

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Homework Explainer posted:

nytimes commenters loving own

glorious

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 16:52

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

this is a repeat of 2000. democrat sycophants want to blame everything but themselves.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 16:54

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

blackmet posted:

She did NOTHING to reach out to them. And so we lost them.

just a reminder that the states and counties in the rust belt that went for obama in the "blue firewall" flipped hugely to trump. it wasn't because they were racists. it wasn't because they were misogynists. the DNC betrayed these workers and their livelihoods and offered no meaningful alternative. donald trump pushed protectionism. the DNC pushing loving nothing. this is why they flipped. it's because the DNC betrayed them and took them for granted by calling them the loving blue firewall.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 17:09

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Zythrst posted:

Besides are you really sure there are more Texas Democrats not voting then California and New York Republicans?

hillary would've lost a national popular vote election. pointing to running up the score on a completely meaningless metric is sour grapes.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 17:11

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

pathetic little tramp posted:

you don't pay dues to be a member of the democratic party and yes it does not make sense to allow people from other parties vote in your party's primary, why would you ever allow that

you could allow independents. allowing independents makes sense considering how increasingly pivotal they are in elections.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 17:13

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 2, 2024 10:31

comedyblissoption: Mar 15, 2006

Nocturtle posted:

Also this thread talks a lot about the need for Democrats to purge the centrists and retake the state legislatures, but what is the actual platform? Unless we're advocating full communism now there's not much the federal govt can do about the steady loss of jobs to outsourcing and automation. It's capitalism working as intended. What can you truthfully offer a pissed-off ex-factory worker in Michigan? Is reviving the PWA or instituting mincome even possible at this point (this would actually be pretty great)?

if the private sector will not fill a void of unemployment and opportunities, the public sector must step in. we already figured this poo poo out almost a century ago. Tennessee Valley Authority this poo poo. it is absolutely ridiculous economically to have a bunch of long-term unemployment of millions and millions of able-bodied men and women who want to loving work. there are plenty of loving jobs just fixing the crumbling infrastructure of the country, and you can't offshore that poo poo.

# ¿ Nov 12, 2016 18:15

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > SUK ZONE: it's all a pointless exercise and you're just screaming into the void

«‹›13 »