|
Karl Sharks posted:this is like the difference between denotation and connotation: you could interpret in a way that MAGA means make america strong by having a strong middle class and all the positive stuff you talked about, but trump has no policy proposals that are in line with that really (i mean, for starters the top marginal tax rate was in the 90s during that era and he wants it to be 33%) so obviously it means the while "man it sucks to be anything but white, straight and male" Trump publicly yelled about several off-shoring efforts (Ford, Nabisco, etc). To the point that some of those plans were cancelled. No, he won't actually do much to stop it as a president, but can we finally admit how good he was with optics on this issue?
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
Dick Milhous Rock! posted:
please tell me how hillary negotiating with the union bosses (while calling the actual union members racists) nabbed the democratic party all three branches of government for a very long time. i respect you're still in cult of personality angry mode. when you get over that, i'm sure you'll use your critical thinking skills and understand how trump and the republicans won. mainstage politics is the distracting circus act, while backstage is where the magic happens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Wyld Thang posted:please tell me how hillary negotiating with the union bosses (while calling the actual union members racists) nabbed the democratic party all three branches of government for a very long time. It's amazing that Tricky Dicky can keep harping on the idea that Trump won't deliver on his promises (which I also believe), when one of the reasons Clinton lost this election is because millions of people couldn't believe she actually had a progressive agenda. Physician heal thyself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Dick Milhous Rock! posted:just avoid the creepy parts with ivanka because whoa that's not okay you mean the creepy part about how president-elect trump cant stop talking about wanting to have sex with his own daughter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Stronger together didn't make any sense as a slogan since Trump wasn't running for independence and pr sure that was the slogan of the losing side in brexit. Wasn't "stronger together" an attempt to get Bernie supporters to support Hillary? Because, ya know, clearly a two word phrase was all that was keeping Bernie supporters from moving over to her side. And it didn't exactly work, because she took one part of Bernie's platform (free college!) and then ignored everything else. Such as the parts that involved sticking up for working Americans against Wall Street, something Trump managed to capitalize on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
feels weird to assume that, because trump won a close election, everything he did was a stroke of genius, and everything clinton tried was a failure. maybe MAGA was a good slogan. maybe it didn't matter at all. i'd personally lean toward the latter, but there's not much evidence either way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
the economic fundamentals very slightly favored trump, and he very barely won. hillary's very expensive gotv program apparently didn't matter; trump's bigotry apparently didn't matter. MAGA, baby
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 17:45
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:feels weird to assume that, because trump won a close election, everything he did was a stroke of genius, and everything clinton tried was a failure. I'm not necessarily saying it was genius (maybe others are), but it really, honestly weirded me out that many very smart Dems seemed either unable or unwilling to consider that people wanted to be in a time where their economic stability was better and, frankly, more in line with how leftists envision the economy. I feel like maybe 3 posters have actually answered my question instead of answering the question they think is coming next.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Probably because the answer is pretty clear? Yeah, they didn't get it, and they still don't get it. Like, I can name things that Trump promised to do. Build a wall. Make America Great Again. Renegotiate trade agreements. What did Hillary promise? To not be Donald Trump. Oh, and I guess Bernie's free college plan but really all I remember of that towards the end was her defending it as possible when Trump brought it up in a debate. The turnout figures this year are showing about the same turnout as in 2012 with Trump getting maybe slightly fewer votes than Romney did. But the big thing was that third parties are way up in turnout. Gary Johnson already has nearly twice as many votes as all third parties combined did in 2012. It's looking like the lessons here are: the Republican base will vote for whoever the Republican is, and Hillary Clinton succeeded in getting voters to abandon the DNC while Trump wasn't able to convince them to vote for him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Xenoveritas posted:It's looking like the lessons here are: the Republican base will vote for whoever the Republican is, and Hillary Clinton succeeded in getting voters to abandon the DNC while Trump wasn't able to convince them to vote for him. I guess it's like the old cliché, "Democrats fall in love, while Republicans fall in line." The GE candidates qualified for a lot of adjectives, but "loveable" wasn't among them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
"America is already great!  " sounds just like "All lives matter!" to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
Sundance over at CTH actually has a solid write-up on exactly this subject: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/11/10/the-return-of-americanism-the-titans-of-industry/
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Xenoveritas posted:And it didn't exactly work, because she took one part of Bernie's platform (free college!) and then ignored everything else. Such as the parts that involved sticking up for working Americans against Wall Street, something Trump managed to capitalize on. Trump's candidacy was a lesson in marketing, given his stated plans to lower taxes on hedge fund guys and repeal all post-recession wall street regulations while Hillary's stated plans were the opposite in both cases. Dems should be able to own populism against trump in 2020, but I find it hard to imagine the actual policies will matter much
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Life is a lesson in marketing. It's a simple fact that if you want to accomplish something that requires other people to go along with it, you have to persuade them somehow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
The very attractiveness of Trump's slogan to desperate voters is also its greatest flaw. If Trump doesn't Make America Great Again and doesn't deliver on his concrete promises to save jobs and deport all the Mexicans after the build the Great Wall of Trump, how will the people who bought that line react? I don't mean the diehard partisans who would vote for a dead dog if it was a registered Republican, I mean the ones who voted for Obama twice and then deserted Hillary for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 00:43
|
|
|
Well What Now posted:The very attractiveness of Trump's slogan to desperate voters is also its greatest flaw. If Trump doesn't Make America Great Again and doesn't deliver on his concrete promises to save jobs and deport all the Mexicans after the build the Great Wall of Trump, how will the people who bought that line react? They will probably vote for the next person who promises change (or IDK maybe start a nationwide riot but probably not). The Dems will have a message of change in 2020 regardless of who is in charge. I'm personally less concerned with what that message is, and more with whether the people saying that message actually believe they can change anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
Andorra posted:"America is already great! Bingo, it comes from the same place of "things are fine for me so I don't understand why you're complaining."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
Andorra posted:"America is already great! The should have come back with "Are you saying America isn't the greatest country in the world?" But it was a great slogan and it resonated, it probably didn't win any elections. Just like Hope and Change were giant white boards you could write anything on and didn't win Obama the election, Trump promised a different tack on the economy like Obama.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
Slime Bro Helpdesk posted:The Dems will have a message of change in 2020 regardless of who is in charge. I'm personally less concerned with what that message is, and more with whether the people saying that message actually believe they can change anything. Oh absolutely, it's our job in the immediate future to make sure that happens. I'm just noting that we might just have very fertile ground to work with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
Well What Now posted:I don't mean the diehard partisans who would vote for a dead dog if it was a registered Republican, I mean the ones who voted for Obama twice and then deserted Hillary for Trump. I'm not sure there were that many that voted for both Obama and Trump. I mean, I'm sure they exist, but it looks like what happened is that Obama voters who didn't vote for Hillary either went third party or just didn't vote at all. Third party votes made up something like 5% of the votes this year versus 1.7% in 2012.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Xenoveritas posted:I'm not sure there were that many that voted for both Obama and Trump. I mean, I'm sure they exist, but it looks like what happened is that Obama voters who didn't vote for Hillary either went third party or just didn't vote at all. Third party votes made up something like 5% of the votes this year versus 1.7% in 2012. Well the same principle applies, really. They thought staying home or voting Dat Gary wouldn't matter, and now look where it's got them. It's not impossible to make them understand this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Well What Now posted:The very attractiveness of Trump's slogan to desperate voters is also its greatest flaw. If Trump doesn't Make America Great Again and doesn't deliver on his concrete promises to save jobs and deport all the Mexicans after the build the Great Wall of Trump, how will the people who bought that line react? They will vote for a reformed dnc with a refocus on Minincome and UHC, if I have anything to say about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:They will vote for a reformed dnc with a refocus on Minincome and UHC, if I have anything to say about it. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:They will vote for a reformed dnc with a refocus on Minincome and UHC, if I have anything to say about it. drat straight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Trump will destroy the country, and in its nonexistence, America will be made Great Again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 04:19
|
|
|
Stale Saltines posted:Bingo, it comes from the same place of "things are fine for me so I don't understand why you're complaining." is this coming from some kind of continuous desire to invent the most nefarious intent from obviously bland and ineffectual rebuttals? it was literally a halfassed attempt to rally the "america best country" rhetoric that most political discourses run rampant with but the people who typically followed that line already were enjoying MAGA
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:The 50s and 60s were awesome if you were white but sucked if you were a woman or minority. Why would anyone want to go back to that. Is this a joke post or serious? Ignoring it being technically nonsense category overlap, ignoring the fact that its not tru, even without those two notable problems, how do you get from "it was awesome for a whole lot of people" to thinking that somehow results in no one wanting to go back to that. For my sanity i am going to assume it was sarcastic and the badness intentional
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:The 50s and 60s were awesome if you were white but sucked if you were a woman or minority. Why would anyone want to go back to that. GlyphGryph posted:Is this a joke post or serious? why do you think the 50s and 60s were good for women & minorities?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:why do you think the 50s and 60s were good for women & minorities? All the women wore pretty dresses and black people had all kinds of exclusive stuff for BLACKS ONLY like schools, drinking fountains, and train cars.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 11:52
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:why do you think the 50s and 60s were good for women & minorities? There's a difference between "the 50s and 60s sucked if you were a woman or a minority" and "the 50s and 60s sucked for lots of women and minorities". This might be hard to believe, but there were actually quite a lot of women who did quite well for themselves and were actually quite happy in the 50s and the 60s for lots of different reasons. Nostalgia for the 50s and 60s, among those who lived through the time period, is not limited to white men. Is it so hard to believe there exist women whose lives suck more now than they did back then, or who even had good or even awesome lives in the era? It's not a trivial difference, considering the conclusion that was drawn was "there is no reason anyone who exists would want to go back to that point in time". But like I said, even ignoring all of that, the statement is still stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
There was a major political realignment at the end of the 60s that resulted in decades of Republican domination as voters sought to get back to the glory days of the 50s and 60s that the Dems had "ruined", and it wasn't about labor rights it was race
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
lmao, the postwar economic boom in the united states was the result of the rest of the world having their industrial infrastructure being bombed to the ground while the continental united states only had one baseball scoreboard get damaged as a result of enemy action in the war. not to mention that all the factories built during wartime with public funds that were basically given to the major manufacturers to do whatever they wanted with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Also no one gave a poo poo about the environment and these factories polluted the poo poo out of everything which we had to pay for starting in the 70s in clean-up money and early deaths from cancer etc.... Which is not to put the blame on people who made decisions in the 50's because they didn't know better at the time, but we do know better now in regards to the environment and race and sexism and we shouldn't want to go back to that now that we know what we know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
and we still had 90% tax rates on the top income earners. not to mention the MASSIVE infrastructure investment that was the interstate highway system, which was a huge gimme to the car industry. also we had the cold war paranoia to keep a lot of the war industries going when they otherwise would have had to draw down manufacturing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
also you had war bonds hitting maturity and the gi bill giving everybody free college. tl;dr: the 1950's economic boom was socialism for white men
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:also you had war bonds hitting maturity and the gi bill giving everybody free college. Also redlining and literally not giving jobs, government funding or anything to blacks really pushed this further.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:Also redlining and literally not giving jobs, government funding or anything to blacks really pushed this further. absofuckinglutely
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:not to mention the MASSIVE infrastructure investment that was the interstate highway system, which was a huge gimme to the car industry. That was military spending. Any auto industry benefit was secondary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
The poor?! Want good jobs?!?!?!? THE gently caress!! *punches a hole in reality and gets Donald Trump elected*
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:24 |
|
|
BigFactory posted:That was military spending. Any auto industry benefit was secondary. maybe so, but they sure as gently caress did benefit from it. not to mention the economic shot in the arm that a massive infrastructure project like that generates.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2016 19:20
|
|