|
Also this obsession with Russian ratfucking being the primary cause of Trump's win is really retarded. It wasn't the driving force behind Hillary's loss (neglecting the rustbelt and white working class voters, running while under an FBI investigation, and running as an establishment candidate in an anti establishment year all played more prominent roles). It honestly just sounds like an excuse to shift blame from the candidate.
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Also this obsession with Russian ratfucking being the primary cause of Trump's win is really retarded. It wasn't the driving force behind Hillary's loss (neglecting the rustbelt and white working class voters, running while under an FBI investigation, and running as an establishment candidate in an anti establishment year all played more prominent roles). It honestly just sounds like an excuse to shift blame from the candidate. This is a strawman. Maybe Clinton's team believe the Russian stole the elections from her. Most if not all the prominent Democrats calling him to be investigated are not suggesting that this is the case. Russian interference with our process is bad enough regardless of its efficacy, doubly so when the then candidate encouraged this, triply so when members of his cabinet are dropping like flies for having hidden their contacts with Russia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:This is a strawman. Maybe Clinton's team believe the Russian stole the elections from her. Most if not all the prominent Democrats calling him to be investigated are not suggesting that this is the case. Russian interference with our process is bad enough regardless of its efficacy, doubly so when the then candidate encouraged this, triply so when members of his cabinet are dropping like flies for having hidden their contacts with Russia. it really isn't. jeffersonclay is quite insistent that russian hacking is why hillary lost, not because she was a terrible candidate
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:This is a strawman. Maybe Clinton's team believe the Russian stole the elections from her. Most if not all the prominent Democrats calling him to be investigated are not suggesting that this is the case. Russian interference with our process is bad enough regardless of its efficacy, doubly so when the then candidate encouraged this, triply so when members of his cabinet are dropping like flies for having hidden their contacts with Russia. This isn't a strawman, it is literally JeffersonClay. Go back one page and read his posts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:You mean then candidate Trump calling on Russia to release emails, having to fire one of his cabinet members for lying about meeting Russians, and then having another cabinet member found out to have lied under oath, is not sufficient evidence? It's way the hell more than 6 Congressional investigations managed to dig up about Clinton regarding Benghazi. I mean lying about meeting with someone and committing treason with that person are very different things just like Hilary's missing emails and sketchy statement arn't the same as a real cover-up. I tend to think that by openly battling with the intelligence community and pissing off most of the global establishment if the real stuff is there it will leak. Which is good. But on the flip side if time goes on and nothing is found, like with Hillary, you have to assume nothing is there. Condiv posted:it really isn't. jeffersonclay is quite insistent that russian hacking is why hillary lost, not because she was a terrible candidate It was close so it's reasonable to think that no hacking would have meant a Hillary win. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:This isn't a strawman, it is literally JeffersonClay. Go back one page and read his posts. I did and I couldn't find it. Could you quote one for me?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:
The point is Hillary lost for a number of reasons, and attributing it primarily to one factor, and especially this one, is idiocy. The Russian hacks didn't happen in a vacuum and played into a larger narrative about Hillary (emails, establishment type, etc). To assign the hacks the lion's share of the loss is pretty retarded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I did and I couldn't find it. Could you quote one for me? JeffersonClay posted:How about democrats that fell for Russian agitprop before the election were ratfucked. But the ones that are still falling for it, despite everyone screaming at them to spit putin's dick out, are ratcucked. Go look at his post history in the various post election analysis threads we have had here for more if you are that curious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
MooselanderII posted:Go look at his post history in the various post election analysis threads we have had here for more if you are that curious. Maybe he doesn't understand what "ratfucked" means? JC, do you really believe that Russian hacking was the main reason Trump got elected?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 03:50
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Maybe he doesn't understand what "ratfucked" means? No, duh, and they sure won't be able to find any quotes. There are plenty of things democrats had within their control that could have changed the course of the election. Our response to the hacking is one of those things, but it's not very likely that it was more important than decisions made by the campaign. But that's not really relevant, right? Our party was the victim of a conspiracy and a crime, one that was at least as serious as the one that got Nixon. We are currently trying to pin this crime on the Republicans. Ostensible democrats minimizing the impact of the crime, or parroting deflections from the republicans, are not loving helping. Is it possible that this criminal conspiracy could have swung the election? Yes. Would this somehow make the Hillary campaign competent? No. Is there a lot more at stake here than quibbling about the primary? Apparently, only for some of us. and: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/russia-ran-most-epic-ratfucking-operation-history-year https://timeline.com/trump-ratfucking-russian-hacking-df98925a6503#.n2ooxnfgl
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:35
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:anti-trump strategy should be accompanied by a pro-poor strategy, to offer a vision and program that replaces and acts as a positive narrative counterpoint to divisive and hateful trumpism. quote:democrats and the left do not respond the same way to moralist narratives the same way conservatives and republicans do, if i recall what various social psychology papers said. they respond more to and require active positive engagement if you want a sustained movement or reliable votes. This is interesting. It makes me wonder how effective moralistic attacks on Wall Street or making examples of financial executives would be. quote:As for tying everything to trump, bernice king disagreed with that last month I agree with most of what she's saying, we should be anti-trump's policies rather than anti-trump the individual. The main difference seems to be she's suggesting making everything about "the republicans" instead of Trump, because that will force the republicans to make a choice between their party and trump. I think they've already made that choice, and if they haven't, the russia poo poo will force them to. I think we should be doing everything to tie trump and the republicans together, not giving them an out. That's exactly what Hillary tried to do, and none of them took her up on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
That's a loving laugh someone like you handing out "advice" to leftists like it's candy, considering just a couple days ago we had you stating that anyone who thinks Russia didn't hand Trump the election and that's that, has no place in the Democratic party. (Or, they can continue to vote Democratic, but their views on policy and strategy should be given zero consideration, if you want to get pedantic, and of course you want to get pedantic.) Maybe you see the writing on the wall and have decided it's worth taking leftists seriously after all, but even you should probably be able to figure out that this sort of thread is impossible to take seriously coming from you. Here's my advice to leftists in this thread, and for that matter anyone else: take anything JeffersonClay says with all the salt on Earth, because he's always wrong and never learns. I think it's hilarious that you started this thread with a message for leftists which was conciliatory, if patronizing, but you couldn't even make it off the first page without getting back up to your old tricks and "shaming" people who think that *gasp* the primary focus should be on the issues and not theater and conspiracy theories. I'd say "never change, JeffersonClay" but I don't have to - you never will.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
I said anyone who thinks the russian hacking didn't happen, or didn't matter, doesn't have any business holding any power in the party. Russia's hacking isn't theater or a conspiracy theory, and people who think it is don't have any business holding any power in the party. I don't think most leftists hold those positions, which is good, because I want more leftists to have more influence in the party. Just not the ones like you I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I don't disagree. Criticism of wall street and financial executives from the left are ethical, pointing out the flawed (some here would say 'doomed') nature of current economic and political structures as they are and pushing for reform (or supplanting) of those systems to prevent those kinds of regulatory capture from happening again. "Making examples" through prosecution restores accountability against abuses of power by showing that leniency toward malfeasance/abuse of power is a thing of the past. The latter crowd's criticism is in line with the ideal that all should be subject to the same opportunities and laws (and works toward the disestablishment of structural violence). The former crowd's ideology assumes the necessity of rigid hierarchical systems, and works toward upholding existing/traditional structures.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:33
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:I said anyone who thinks the russian hacking didn't happen, or didn't matter, doesn't have any business holding any power in the party. Russia's hacking isn't theater or a conspiracy theory, and people who think it is don't have any business holding any power in the party. JeffersonClay posted:I don't think most leftists hold those positions, which is good, because I want more leftists to have more influence in the party. Just not the ones like you I guess. Well, you got him, and you got your party. Enjoy it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
There's a link between the moralistic critique and upholding traditional values, and between the ethical critique and supporting equality and justice. And the former work for conservatives and the latter work for the left. Am I getting that right? Can't we just make an ethical, rather than moral, case against trump? I'm assuming there's no inherent difficulty in making an ethical case against pussy grabbing, or conspiring with the russians to subvert an election, or any of his policies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:There's a huge difference between stating that they shouldn't have been doing that poo poo, and that the hacks didn't matter. Probably folks tried to explain this to you but couldn't get a word in edgewise between cries of "ratfucking...!" boo hoo oh poor you. Did I steal all the posts before people could explain what they really meant? quote:That's interesting considering you spent most of the DNC chair thread patiently explaining to the rest of us idiots why giving leftists a voice in the party will lead to electoral defeats. And that the candidate most leftists settled on was a poor choice and we should go with the "identical, honest!" establishment pick instead for... reasons. More bullshit you won't be able to quote, because it never happened.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:boo hoo oh poor you. Did I steal all the posts before people could explain what they really meant? JeffersonClay posted:More bullshit you won't be able to quote, because it never happened. JeffersonClay posted:I don't doubt the democrats could get more votes from leftists by pandering to them. I don't think it's self evident that they would gain more leftist votes than they'd lose moderate votes. That's not inconsistent with the suggestion that some of the left hosed itself and everybody else by putting purity above pragmatism-- a weakness Trump and the Russians deftly exploited. I don't blame any Somethingawful dot com poster for losing us the election. I blame the people and institutions on the left with actual influence, like Greenwald, or the Jacobin, who thought that by attacking lesser-evilism they weren't responsible for the consequences of tearing down the only person who could beat trump. JeffersonClay posted:Perez isn't a centrist. The 2016 democratic platform is not centrist. The positions articulated by Perez and the 2016 platform are not electoral liabilities, and there's zero evidence democrats would benefit from shifting further left. Your "give me exactly what I want or I'll throw a tantrum" strategy got you nothing but Trump in 2016 and will get you exactly the same if you try it again. JeffersonClay posted:I don't disagree that democrats need to do something different. I don't think it's self evident that the only reasonable choice is to take a hard left. Looking at the clusterfuck trump is managing to create in the whitehouse, I think democrats are going to have the easiest path by focusing their efforts on being anti-trump, tying the republicans to trump, and making smart marginal improvements to the 2016 platform. This strikes me as significantly less risky than a strategy where we take a hard left and find out that welp, Americans do really have an irrational opposition to socialism, and the republicans really are good at weaponizing it. JeffersonClay posted:I don't think it's self evident that the political strategy the left is outlining will make it easier to win the next election. I don't intend to mistake the things I want to be true for the things that actually are true, again, after making that mistake this past election. That's how I'm participating in that debate. JeffersonClay posted:Next time trump will have an actual record to run against. Last time he was an anti-establishment outsider with no record that people projected their hopes onto. Now he'll bee a historically unpopular incumbent. I agree with you that the democrats need a policy agenda, too, but we should tailor that to fit into our anti-trump strategy, i don't think we need any radical changes from the platform we have. JeffersonClay posted:Conservative democrats exist and they might prefer trump to an outspoken leftist like warren. You also defended the DNC when you thought they weren't going to release the results of the DNC chair election by ballot, pointing out that it wasn't technically a secret ballot since who voted for who is knowable in principle. Fortunately even your centrist overlords in the DNC leadership realized that was loving stupid, and did release the results in compliance with the letter and the spirit of their own loving bylaws. You're just awful, JeffersonClay. I've stated in the past that I don't think our actual politics (in the sense of what we think makes good policy) differ very much - your problem is you lack any courage of your convictions at all. You're contemptible in a way unique amongst most people here, and I've no doubt that if you were to hold elected office you'd be exactly the sort of politician despised by everyone, regardless of their political leanings. You're the Joe Lieberman and the Tony Blair of dead gay comedy forums posting, JeffersonClay. I pity you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
Wow! Now all you need to do is post where I said giving leftists a voice in the party would lead to electoral defeats and you'll have proven me wrong! Note that's not the same thing as "there's no reason to think we'll benefit from taking a hard left on policy". I'm happy to have leftists in the party, and most of them are making more useful contributions than "go left problem solved". Our strategy needs to be based on something more than gut feelings and primary salt. I'm sorry that hard truth makes you so mad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 16:26
|
|
|
By your own logic we loose nothing by going further left (it's a net zero). So why not do it anyways so we can at least get better policy proposals out the whole deal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
That's a really poor reading of my logic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Now all you need to do is post where I said giving leftists a voice in the party would lead to electoral defeats and you'll have proven me wrong! Unless you just mean I need to find a post where you said the exact words "giving leftists a voice in the party would lead to electoral defeats" verbatim? In that case I think you might be right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:No, duh, and they sure won't be able to find any quotes. There are plenty of things democrats had within their control that could have changed the course of the election. Our response to the hacking is one of those things, but it's not very likely that it was more important than decisions made by the campaign. lol you're kevin drum IRL aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Lol at you still being mad about not understanding what secret ballot means. I'm glad they released the info, they couldn't have done that if it was a secret ballot. icantfindaname posted:lol you're kevin drum IRL aren't you? Lol at you and Condiv still pretending to be on the left.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Lol at you and Condiv still pretending to be on the left. Yeah, much better to have party apparatchiks smearing and pushing candidates to run against compromise candidates from the left while claiming to be representing us.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:I guess to you "voice in the party" and "tangible influence on policy" are two different things, then? I know you're happy to have leftists voting for Democrats provided they don't get too uppity - perhaps that's what you mean by "voice in the party"? A voice that says "I will reliably vote Democratic no matter what." That voice? I can assure you most leftists do not have that in mind when they think of increasing their influence on the party. Yes, voice in the party means being a part of the discussion and part of making decisions. It doesn't mean that anything leftists suggest must be implemented without criticism or debate. You want the rest of the party to hand you the wheel and shut up so you don't have to do the work of actually defending your ideas, and that ain't going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Yeah, much better to have party apparatchiks smearing and pushing candidates to run against compromise candidates from the left while claiming to be representing us. I don't think we have any of those, just weirdly enthusiastic fans. But the people who only stir poo poo are really obvious and if you are defending them I assume you are probably a right wing poo poo stirring troll too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
It is fascinating watching the psychosis of the cultist denied at play. JeffersonClay knew for a fact that Hillary Clinton's election would prove once and for all that the left was meaningless, powerless, and something his ideology could safely ignore until the end of time. But faced with his ideology's abject collapse, he cannot bring himself to attack the thing that eviscerated it. He does not understand it, he does not want to face it, he has nothing he can use against it than complaining how unfair it is that his Chosen One lost. He does not have an anti-Trump strategy. He has an anti-Left strategy. And maybe if he silences all those hateful voices reminding him Bernie would have won, Donald Trump will stop making a mockery of the seat Hillary Clinton was supposed to have right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
The Democratic Party is not a leninist institution. Small-D democracy is working as it is supposed to if the left insists that either the party represent its views, or it will refuse to vote for that party. If the Democratic Party thinks it can do better without the left that's a perfectly legitimate course of action. But throwing a screaming baby tantrum because you feel you are entitled to the left's vote, or anyone else's vote for that matter, and they're simply not allowed to do something like withholding it, is insanely pathetic
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:I don't think we have any of those, just weirdly enthusiastic fans. But the people who only stir poo poo are really obvious and if you are defending them I assume you are probably a right wing poo poo stirring troll too. People stir poo poo because they have zero belief that the people representing them will do it for them when it's necessary to. Hence the party's crisis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
 A bernout calling me a cultist denied and saying Bernie would have won in the same post without a quantum of self awareness.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
I'm not sure this is a particularly good thread to go on about shillary because she lost- she's a massive loser and we know this and she deserved it but it's time to talk about the best way to gently caress trump and his flunkies over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Lol at you still being mad about not understanding what secret ballot means. I'm glad they released the info, they couldn't have done that if it was a secret ballot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:It's weird that you parse "it wasn't technically a secret ballot" as "it was a secret ballot". It was not a secret ballot - I was saying that in the other thread too. Keeping the results from the public was also against their claims of wanting a more transparent process. I'm also glad they released the results and it seems we're in 100% agreement here on this issue, so I don't know why you keep coming after me for... whatever it is. Which claims? I'm not familiar with the claims, but this kind of plays right back to the "it's totally a secret ballot because I'm pretending I can't read" that was going on in the other thread, by implying that it's only not secret because of a technicality. It's not weird to parse it that way when you emphasize it that way. quote:You also defended the DNC when you thought they weren't going to release the results of the DNC chair election by ballot, pointing out that it wasn't technically a secret ballot since who voted for who is knowable in principle. No implications here? really? Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Mar 6, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Ze Pollack posted:It is fascinating watching the psychosis of the cultist denied at play. The anti-Trump strategy is absolutely an anti-left strategy. Its a way for the anti-ideological and centrist wing of the party to hold on to power and keep the DNC in a holding motion while they wait for the next Obama to appear and save them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Yes, voice in the party means being a part of the discussion and part of making decisions. It doesn't mean that anything leftists suggest must be implemented without criticism or debate. You want the rest of the party to hand you the wheel and shut up so you don't have to do the work of actually defending your ideas, and that ain't going to happen. JeffersonClay posted:The large majority of leftists/sanders people are great and the democrats are lucky to have them. There's a small minority of these groups that are actively harmful; if these people decided to gently caress off we'd probably be better off. This second group is highly correlated with people who cant stop talking about the horrible corporatist democrats, who think Wikileaks is doing us a favor by publicizing the truth, and who keep encouraging other democrats to leave the party.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 18:56
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:
Your anti-Trump strategy, in its entirety, consists of trying to say Trump's name enough to make people not like him. It has been abundantly, painfully demonstrated to you that this is insufficient. Donald Trump is your president, and all the saying "trump bad" millions of dollars in Wall Street donors could buy not only couldn't get you Pennsylvania, it actively lost you the rust belt, because people were willing to take a chance on such an awful candidate just to avoid having to be ruled by the same old democratic establishment. You have seen this, and refuse to learn from it. The sole utility of the strategy you propose is that it will give you an excuse, when it fails again, to blame those accursed leftists for shouting "trump bad" insufficiently loudly for your tastes. Offer people an alternative or die. Those are the Democratic Party's options. That you would prefer death to actually offering people anything has, as the President of the United States can tell you, been noted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:anti-trump strategy should be accompanied by a pro-poor strategy, to offer a vision and program that replaces and acts as a positive narrative counterpoint to divisive and hateful trumpism. I support this. Because yes Trump is a disaster but so is his administration as well as the GOP. We should not resist because of Trump, but because we face evil that must be cleansed from this earth.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:03
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Which claims? I'm not familiar with the claims, but this kind of plays right back to the "it's totally a secret ballot because I'm pretending I can't read" that was going on in the other thread, by implying that it's only not secret because of a technicality. It's not weird to parse it that way when you emphasize it that way. I mean try to keep in mind most of my participation in that part of the thread was Brainiac Five accusing me of witch hunts and McCarthyism and poo poo, so it might be that my thoughts on the subject were not totally made clear, but in spite of whatever phrasing you disagree with if you wanted the results made public and you don't think it was a secret ballot, then we're in pretty much total agreement on anything of consequence here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
Why contain what Trump is doing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 19:11
|
|