|
Talmonis posted:I'm glad. You're a good person. I'm tired of being good. gently caress them for what they've done. Then vote Trump, dude.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Then vote Trump, dude. That'd make me just as complicit. They did this to themselves, and I'd rather that they felt it instead of the people who don't deserve it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Well, Trump sure had a plan to gently caress them over, and he told them about it a lot (while making empty promises about getting coal jobs back that they could barely pretend to believe) so maybe they should have got over the fact that Clinton is hardly the slickest campaigner that the USA ever saw. Because Trump is the worst candidate for President in my lifetime. Or, or, maybe Clinton could have had a plan and talked to the people about it? Its politics. You *have* to sell yourself. She was just incredibly bad at doing it. I mean for fucks sake an old jew who most people hadnt heard of prior to 2016 came within striking distance of beating her, and a young one term *black* senator beat her in 2008. Maybe she just isnt very good at getting elected? Fun fact: Hillary Clinton has only ever won one contested election prior to 2016, and that was after her opponent imploded under a sea of scandals and was replaced at the last second by a relative unknown. And again, there wasnt this crossover phenomenon. Democratic voters didnt suddenly decide Trump had a good plan. Republican voters decided that even if they didnt much care for Trump he at least showed up for them so they showed up for him. Hillary abandoned Democratic voters so they abandoned her in turn. If she had given the slightest of shits about the rust belt she probably would have won. Hillary Clinton abandoned Flint, Michigan - the best example of mismanagement, racism, and the fallout of globalization in America and something the entire midwest could have connected with - the moment the primary was over. Hillary Clinton did not care about Flint or its residents beyond their primary votes, because her algorithms told her their general election votes were locked in. She did not care. And in turn voters in Michigan did not care about her. This is not rocket science.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Or, or, maybe Clinton could have had a plan and talked to the people about it? Its politics. You *have* to sell yourself. She was just incredibly bad at doing it. She wasn't great. But Trump was actively terrible at it. He came over as a deranged maniac with a plan to drag the USA into WW3 while shovelling money into his own pockets and destroying the economy. Let's imagine you are unemployed. Two employers offer you a job. One of them is $40k a year doing boring office work with mediocre healthcare benefits. The second is $10,000 a year wading through a filthy sewer at night with no healthcare benefits. Which job do you take? The first one is boring and isn't gonna make you rich. The second one is actively horrible. Do you say "Fine! If neither of you are going to offer me a really good job, I'm taking the crappy sewer one - just to show you!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:That'd make me just as complicit. They did this to themselves, and I'd rather that they felt it instead of the people who don't deserve it. Could you mourn in the appropriate threads and not poo poo up this one with more white-noise garbage? Yeah, Trump voters are racist. Repeating that over and over again is just drowning out any kind of analytical commentary. Nobody really gives a gently caress that you feel bad about Trump winning or that you're filled with resentment toward your political enemies. Those are perfectly normal feelings to have but you don't need to talk about them constantly in threads that aren't designated for that kind of talk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Let's imagine you are unemployed. Two employers offer you a job. One of them is $40k a year doing boring office work with mediocre healthcare benefits. The second is $10,000 a year wading through a filthy sewer at night with no healthcare benefits. Which job do you take? The first one is boring and isn't gonna make you rich. The second one is actively horrible. Do you say "Fine! If neither of you are going to offer me a really good job, I'm taking the crappy sewer one - just to show you!" In this analogy the sewer job would be a Republican establishment candidate. The Trump equivalent would be rejecting both job offers and striking out to become a Youtube Star.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:She wasn't great. But Trump was actively terrible at it. He came over as a deranged maniac with a plan to drag the USA into WW3 while shovelling money into his own pockets and destroying the economy. Do I get to work with Baloogan? If so the sewer job might be pretty cool. Also, while you may think the things Trump was saying were actively terrible (they were!) you can't deny that Trump kept *showing up* to places and *actually campaigned*. His campaign had a message. A real lovely message but an active call to action nonetheless. Trump focused on motivating his core voters rather than ignoring them because they were 'safe' so he could focus on flipping blue states. Everyone laughed their asses off when they thought Trump was going to sink a ton of money into New York because lol thats a blue state, but somehow Hillary making efforts in Texas (while ignoring the midwest) was a masterstroke. Trump was legitimately the better campaigner in 2016. Dude may be a circus clown, but circus clowns know how to entertain an audience. Trump got R voters to go to the polls. Clinton could not get D voters to go. She lost. And I dont know how often I have to say this, but THERE WASNT A MASSIVE CROSSOVER. PEOPLE DIDNT CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO THINGS. This was a partisan election. They chose between going to the polls or staying home, not between Trump or Hillary. The vast bulk of Trump voters wouldnt have voted D under any circumstances, and the vast bulk of Hillary voters wouldnt have voted R under any circumstances. D voters just didn't show up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:She wasn't great. But Trump was actively terrible at it. He came over as a deranged maniac with a plan to drag the USA into WW3 while shovelling money into his own pockets and destroying the economy. FTFY
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:In this analogy the sewer job would be a Republican establishment candidate. The Trump equivalent would be rejecting both job offers and striking out to become a Youtube Star. Um, no. Trying to become a YouTube star is a *way* better idea than voting Trump. You'll have a blast, you'll run out of money, you'll get a real job. You might even strike it big!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:35
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:FTFY Yeah, lots of idiots have ruined their lives and bankrupted themselves in MLM scams.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Yeah, lots of idiots have ruined their lives and bankrupted themselves in MLM scams. This is true. People will make bad decisions if they feel it will give them autonomy and/or dignity. Trump ran on promising that. Hillary offered table scraps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Also, while you may think the things Trump was saying were actively terrible (they were!) you can't deny that Trump kept *showing up* to places and *actually campaigned*. His campaign had a message. A real lovely message but an active call to action nonetheless. Trump focused on motivating his core voters rather than ignoring them because they were 'safe' so he could focus on flipping blue states. I don't get why people would prefer a lovely message to a dull message. It's like the Eddie Izzard sketch "Cake or death?" I'm not a huge fan of cake, but I prefer it to death! If I have to choose one (and not voting is also a choice) I'm choosing cake, even if it is dull and fattening. Not a Step posted:Everyone laughed their asses off when they thought Trump was going to sink a ton of money into New York because lol thats a blue state, but somehow Hillary making efforts in Texas (while ignoring the midwest) was a masterstroke. Trump's money sunk into New York *was* a waste and you'd be laughing your rear end off at him if his campaign hadn't worked out in other places. The Clinton campaign thought that the presidency was a lock and that Hillary needed to support *future* campaigns. Texas is getting more Hispanic and more tech. So it could flip in 8, 16 years. The long game. It backfired but it was over-clever rather than dumb. Trump campaigned in New York only for his ego - it's where he's from, it's where he loves. They loathe him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
People were offered a shot at the MAGA mystery box versus the Goldman Sachs candidate. Not much of a choice imo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:This is true. People will make bad decisions if they feel it will give them autonomy and/or dignity. Trump ran on promising that. Hillary offered table scraps. Isn't someone who spends all their money on MLMs and loses their house, when they could have made more money just working at a $40k job for 10 years, a bit of a dummy? There's no dignity when the repo man puts your stuff on the lawn. There's no dignity in being taken for a sucker at a scam job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
tekz posted:People were offered a shot at the MAGA mystery box versus the Goldman Sachs candidate. Not much of a choice imo. And yet Trump keeps stacking his cabinet with Goldman Sachs. Seems like you were sold a pup, chum.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:And yet Trump keeps stacking his cabinet with Goldman Sachs. Seems like you were sold a pup, chum. tekz whole gimmick is just posting "Hillary sucks" a different way in every post. He doesn't actually care what trump does.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I don't get why people would prefer a lovely message to a dull message. It's like the Eddie Izzard sketch "Cake or death?" I'm not a huge fan of cake, but I prefer it to death! If I have to choose one (and not voting is also a choice) I'm choosing cake, even if it is dull and fattening. People arent rational. Everything you think you know about game theory or basic economics or any kind of choice theory? Throw that poo poo out the window as a tool for understanding human behavior. Upgrade to some behavioral economics (still in its relative infancy) and psychology. Appeals to emotion are absolutely more powerful than appeals to facts and logic. And the word you're looking for isn't over-clever, its hubris. As Colin Powell put it "Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris". Hillary thought she was going to run the board on election day and not only didnt campaign in key rustbelt states, but actively refused the requests of those states for more resources when they saw the writing on the wall. Hillary Clinton was a legendarily bad campaigner.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:And yet Trump keeps stacking his cabinet with Goldman Sachs. Seems like you were sold a pup, chum. Most mystery boxes are indeed scams. But that's the choice Americans were given, because the Democratic party is a broken pile that sold out the working class.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
KaiserSchnitzel posted:Most Americans - indeed, most GOP voters - are not racist. Yes they are. Racism is so deeply ingrained in most people that overcoming it takes an enormous amount of conscious mental effort, and gently caress off if you think the average voter does that. Simply being able to dismiss the very obvious (and justified) concerns of minorities in favour of your own concerns in order to vote Trump is in itself arguably racist. Trump was being openly racist on TV, you don't get to see that and go 'yeah, but the benefits to me totally outweigh this' without being a bit racist yourself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:01
|
|
|
tekz posted:Most mystery boxes are indeed scams. But that's the choice Americans were given, because the Democratic party is a broken pile that sold out the working class. In what way? Seems to me like they bust their asses repairing the economy from the recession that Bush gave us. Brought back the car factories. Steady job growth, steady economic growth. Wars limited. Terrorist attacks limited. Attempted to improve healthcare, mixed results but a good start. Decent record. Not perfect, but better than the two Bush catastrophes. And Trump makes both Bushes look like great statesmen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:If you think that the equivalent RNC emails would have revealed nothing but party harmony and noble intentions, boy have I got a bridge to sell you. But the thing is, they did their jobs and elected who the majority of their voters wanted, unlike the DNC. ... The most important thing to realize, in general, is it doesn't matter what you think or what I think it's what other people think. In politics, you are responsible for making other people like you enough to vote for you instead of abstaining or voting against you. If you don't, you lose. Saying or showing how bad the other guy is is not enough. I wish people would stop trying to justify the lovely choices we were given in the election as somehow not lovely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
jabby posted:Yes they are. Racism is so deeply ingrained in most people that overcoming it takes an enormous amount of conscious mental effort, and gently caress off if you think the average voter does that. Voting is deeply personal for most though, and when it comes time to pull the lever (or, more likely, decide to even go to the polls) people tend to reflect on what a candidate said they will do for *them* personally, and not give a flying gently caress about anyone else. People be selfish yo
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:In what way? Seems to me like they bust their asses repairing the economy from the recession that Bush gave us. Brought back the car factories. Steady job growth, steady economic growth. Wars limited. Terrorist attacks limited. Attempted to improve healthcare, mixed results but a good start. Decent record. Not perfect, but better than the two Bush catastrophes. And Trump makes both Bushes look like great statesmen. The Clinton admin's deregulation of Wall Street, trade deals, job offshoring and welfare 'reform' played a major part in the continuing destitution of the middle class. Obama's term has seen the people who brought us the financial crisis continue to live the high life while a lot of people are working longer hours at shittier (sometimes part time 'gig economy') jobs for fewer benefits, seeing more public services slashed as the government wrings its hands at companies and the rich offshoring all their taxes and going 'Nothing we could do! Got no money'. The only way the Democrats have any future moving forward is to purge the right and pro-business wing of the party or they're on the road to extinction like the Whigs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Voting is deeply personal for most though, and when it comes time to pull the lever (or, more likely, decide to even go to the polls) people tend to reflect on what a candidate said they will do for *them* personally, and not give a flying gently caress about anyone else. People be selfish yo That's kind of the point though. Minorities are forced to consider how a candidate will treat minorities. White people get to ignore it, which is at best an example of white privilege and arguably with Trump (considering how blatant he was) swings toward outright racism of the 'my race is more important/deserving than yours' variety.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:In what way? Awful. Absolutely awful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
tekz posted:The Clinton admin's deregulation of Wall Street, trade deals, job offshoring and welfare 'reform' played a major part in the continuing destitution of the middle class. Obama's term has seen the people who brought us the financial crisis continue to live the high life while a lot of people are working longer hours at shittier (sometimes part time 'gig economy') jobs for fewer benefits, seeing more public services slashed as the government wrings its hands at companies and the rich offshoring all their taxes and going 'Nothing we could do! Got no money'. Obama's administration should have made examples of at least a few of the bankers, but I suspect that they covered their tracks and did stuff semi-legally so that a prosecution would not stand up in court. As for the welfare "reform", the middle classes asked for it - and more! And harsher! Can't blame an elected official for giving the people what they asked for, right? Down with Obamacare, yeah? Job offshoring is a function of better communications. It used to be that a phone line to India cost awe-inspiring amounts. Now it costs virtually nothing, making Indian callcenter workers feasible. Can't do much about that without cutting the cable to India. Same with shipping. Container boats make it feasible to make cheap poo poo in China and ship it over. Can't uninvent the container boat. If the Republicans want to fix it, then I'm waiting patiently, but their plans so far seem to be an orgy of squeezing the country for every last cent before it goes down in flames.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
E: ^^^ Obama didn't even try to prosecute. He was a bad president. Well, maybe not 'bad', we've got Trump coming to redefine the term, but certainly not good.jabby posted:That's kind of the point though. Minorities are forced to consider how a candidate will treat minorities. White people get to ignore it, which is at best an example of white privilege and arguably with Trump (considering how blatant he was) swings toward outright racism of the 'my race is more important/deserving than yours' variety. That sounds real bad for them, but its not likely to change anytime this generation. How do you propose addressing the fact that every voter is ultimately only concerned with themselves and, at the outside, their immediate group identity?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:31
|
|
|
certainly none of this is a function of a hostile republican dominated congress must all be that dang obummer's fault thanks, obama
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Obama's administration should have made examples of at least a few of the bankers, but I suspect that they covered their tracks and did stuff semi-legally so that a prosecution would not stand up in court. It didn't happen because they didn't particularly want to do it. It has been demonstrated, repeatedly, that when the US government actually wants to prosecute a connected or powerful individual, they can and will do so. And this is entirely within the Executives' domain, so there's not even a legislative excuse- never mind that the Democrats held congress when Obama's term started.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
stone cold posted:certainly none of this is a function of a hostile republican dominated congress
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:37
|
|
|
I guess it just popped out of the ether weird and hosed up imo
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
stone cold posted:certainly none of this is a function of a hostile republican dominated congress OBAMA DID NOTHING WRONG. AMERICA IS ALREADY GREAT. PLEASE IGNORE THE UNABATED DESTRUCTION OF THE MIDDLE CLASS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
Sappo posted:It didn't happen because they didn't particularly want to do it. It has been demonstrated, repeatedly, that when the US government actually wants to prosecute a connected or powerful individual, they can and will do so. And this is entirely within the Executives' domain, so there's not even a legislative excuse- never mind that the Democrats held congress when Obama's term started. They would have to actually have broken a law though, so it really is part of the legislature's domain. MBS and CDS vehicles simply weren't regulated and in fact congress specifically said they could not be regulated when the Clinton administration tried to do so in the 90s. To this day they remain unregulated, and that is purely because of congress. The higher up the food chain you go the more murky it gets. You would need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that those top level banking executives were knowingly engaged in fraud. Given the SEC and DOJ white collar budgets this is a very tall order to try and prove. I bet you can guess who controls the budgets of those agencies. And of course laws and prosecutions of individuals of those laws are subject to the courts. So while it is great to say obviously these people committed fraud and put our entire economy at risk, but without clear laws that are broken and clear chains of evidence showing it, convictions won't stand even if you get that far.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Isn't someone who spends all their money on MLMs and loses their house, when they could have made more money just working at a $40k job for 10 years, a bit of a dummy? There's no dignity when the repo man puts your stuff on the lawn. There's no dignity in being taken for a sucker at a scam job. So what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
jBrereton posted:I guess it just popped out of the ether weird and hosed up imo Obama should have done something about the bankers but the teaparty wave is the result of racism and nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Obama should have done something about the bankers but the teaparty wave is the result of racism and nothing more. Youre pretty self centered E: People have other motivations in life than racism. Just because racism is *your* primary animus doesn't mean it applies to everything. But hey, when all you have is a hammer I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Obama should have done something about the bankers but the teaparty wave is the result of racism and nothing more. the tea party had elements of racism no doubt but people were genuinely pissed at the bailouts you had the same thing on the left with ows
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Youre pretty self centered At least they're not a racist H T H 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:They would have to actually have broken a law though, so it really is part of the legislature's domain. MBS and CDS vehicles simply weren't regulated and in fact congress specifically said they could not be regulated when the Clinton administration tried to do so in the 90s. To this day they remain unregulated, and that is purely because of congress. Nevvy Z posted:Obama should have done something about the bankers but the teaparty wave is the result of racism and nothing more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 23:50 |
|
|
jBrereton posted:You can convince a few radges that a black president is the antichrist, but if he had done an actually good job, I feel like a greater number of people would have turned out and kept congress blue just to gently caress with them. He did a pretty good job. Didn't fix everything, but then again he is a mortal man, so you can't expect him to. Remember that the President is not a King. He has to work with the Republican congress. Don't they get any blame?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 23:03
|
|