Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

Al Borland Corpse posted:

Hello thread. You might not know me, I'm Al Borland Corp, a limited liability poster. I am from the now defunct Trump thread. I look forward to sharing with you my thoughts, opinions, and insights!

I had a fun time voting in Alabama last night. Every candidate I voted for lost, and every ballot initiative I voted for went the opposite way! Oh man what a silly state.

The Al is short for Alabama, not everyone knows that.

Hello friend, our state is terrible. The only wins I got on my ballot were local ones, which is expected since I live in the black belt.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

Spiritus Nox posted:

Sure we can't go for a ban? It's not like Oxx adds anything even when he's not publicly looking forward to other posters' suicides.

Yeah he's at the point where he has multiple probations for telling people to kill themselves/hoping folks die.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005


You know the take is dumb enough without you adding this even dumber spin on top of it, right

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

Lightning Knight posted:

I think Crowley would've tried for the ratfuck if he hadn't been called out early and very publicly for trying to stay on the ballot sneakily, and it is naive to think there wasn't something fishy going on there. He should've dropped out gracefully when he lost the primary and that he didn't is a douchey thing.

Yeah, it's disingenuous to go "and oh look, he never did anything" when this was the entire point of calling him out on it.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

eke out posted:

maybe you can point us towards some of the many campaign events that Crowley obviously would've had as the nominee that was seriously trying to steal the election on the WFP ticket for these past two months

Again, this is incredibly dumb because the entire point of calling him out immediately & publicly was to nip that in the bud.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

MSDOS KAPITAL posted:



I mean he still drags Lee Carter whenever that subject comes up, despite Carter doing pretty much exactly what YBF would tell you a leftist is supposed to do to effect change and move the conversation left. He just doesn't have a mental model of politics that allows for leftist victories that aren't either one-off flukes or thanks to a masterful Sorkinesque manipulation of a framework bought and paid for by centrists.


Spite does weird poo poo to a person.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

predicto posted:

yes, she lost. She was doomed by that point. It was a Hail Mary move of desperation.

But you idiots think it was an unveiling of her inner soul

Most normal people consider it very revealing when someone goes full racism, yes.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

Farchanter posted:

Why is the Congressional Black Caucus in particular upset about watering down superdelegates? Is it because they are themselves superdelegates, or is there a civil rights issue I'm missing?

They liked having the kingmaking influence of a large, unified block. Which, given the context of, well, America and the black experience within it, is understandable. But it's still undemocratic as gently caress and attempts to spin in at disenfranchisement didn't spur much sympathy.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

GreyjoyBastard posted:

i don't think anybody is saying this

unless we have people who think eg Harris and Booker aren't centrists, which i'd enjoy seeing argued in this thread

longer quote from the article, not that i'm a bidenliker (for 2020) :ohdear::

That some :jerkbag: poo poo to talk about "we" with the Civil Rights movement there given his loving history.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

It's completely fair to say Joe Biden's stance is "gently caress them kids" considering he basically put the phrase into legislation with the student loan crap.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

CascadeBeta posted:

The alternative was an actual Nazi you dummy.

Why is this relevant re: the ridiculous praise.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

CascadeBeta posted:

If your two options in 2020 were Bloomberg (D) and Trump (R) who do you vote for?

Again, why is this relevant to making fun of idiots for gushing over a lesser fascist?

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

CascadeBeta posted:

I'm faulting you because you're making fun of people who were heaving a sigh of relief that they didn't elect their version of Trump over a year ago. Very different from them doing that today.

This is the weirdest attempt at gaslighting. The tweets being made fun of are right there. They are not "sighs of relief". They're legitimate gushing over an oligarch toadie that 3/4 of his own country hates because he is an oligarch toadie making it easier for fascism to take hold

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

Condiv posted:

no-one cared about hillary's platform cause she quite explicitly advocated for having a public face and a private face on everything

It really cannot be stressed enough that Hillary had absolutely 0 credibility on any of that poo poo. No one had any reason to believe her.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

Fulchrum posted:

Thats not an old phrase, its projection.

It's history, bud.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

Ytlaya posted:

More generally speaking, I find "purity test" rhetoric to be extremely morally repugnant. It's basically letting the mask slip and revealing that the person in question doesn't actually care about the issues in question (because it's super obvious that anyone who would describe other basic historical social justice goals as "being obsessed with purity" is not one of the good guys).

It is one of the best surefire ways to identify people who are absolutely not on your side, no matter what they might claim. It's really impossible to understate how hosed up it is to refer to things as basic as "putting even a small dent in grotesque material inequality" or "not murdering/displacing millions of people through harmful foreign policy" as some extreme "purity test."

There's a default amount of suffering that just has to happen in the world, and unfortunately for all those brown kids the rational calculus is that they have to get mulched and I thank god every day there's no one on my continent with the ability to rub my nose in it and tell me it's hosed up that isn't also really easy to ignore.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

Your Boy Fancy posted:

It’s not germane to the point. Black voters didn’t vote for Bernie, so why are you quoting me?

Because you spun some dumb poo poo about Bernie being used to keep leftists home into your already dumb statement.

Tho I'd love to hear how "hopefully not dying in miserable poverty, likely from a treatable illness they cant afford to treat" is "nothing."

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

1glitch0 posted:

I'm happy to have the conversation because I don't really get it. If it was purely a difference in their political platforms what was Clinton offering to black voters that Sanders wasn't?

From my observations? A belief that she'd owe them loving big because she wasn't going to accomplish her ambitions without their support.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

DrNutt posted:

Well that's certainly always paid off.

I'm not going to make a judgment on it. It's a function of a lot of bad poo poo in American politics that ended up with the Clintons being unique among national-level politicians in their support of black communities even if that investment was purely transactional on their part. If you're drowning and two folks are offering you a hand, you're probably gonna take the hand of the person you know that needs you.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

Your Boy Fancy posted:

I mean, are you arguing that Bernie actually did have black voters carry him in primaries, because that’s empirically wrong

Economic inequality does not translate to racial equality, especially if that’s your rhetorical line with an emotional impact. At the time, it was perceived as whitewashing black issues. I remember that particular fight quite clearly, because again, it’s been two years and nobody has ever admitted fault in the never ending Bernie Hillary Holy War. I don’t know who won, but one thing I know, it wasn’t you or me.

Rich people.

Rich people won, in convincing folks that economic equality has no function in racial equality.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

archangelwar posted:

This is definitely true.


This is not a correct view of the narrative. The narrative was simply "id pol is important too" as demonstrated by the uptick in black vote for Bernie after his early corrections. And it is also a correct understanding of ground reality in politics. But it is also a relatively easy solve that was only impactful because of timing and circumstance.

That's true and fair. But I'm also largely of the mind that it was irresponsible at best and malicious at worst of any any parties that worked to push poo poo in line with the "breaking up the big banks" horseshit that very much had the intent of minimizing the importance of economic equality in folks heads behind it.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

Chilichimp posted:

I got into this with some demsbad posters near the start of this thread. Because a child was ever in a chainlink fence during the Obama administration, it's apparently the same thing, so Trump must be telling the truth here.

You are literally still quibbling over a difference that amounts to "Well at least Obama had the decency to throw parent and child into the same kennel!"

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

Heck Yes! Loam! posted:

Even if it was a hit job that uncovered his behavior, it was still the right thing to do. As someone that really like Franken before this all came out, it was incredibly illuminating to see all of his defenders out themselves as terrible loving people.

And as we've seen, the continuing inability of certain folks to resist defending him well after the fact is frankly a gift.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

Your Taint posted:

Done. Is the Red Cross a good one or are there better ones?

The Red Cross, to my understanding, has more money than it can actually spend and should not be reflexively donated to.

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

nerve posted:

im gonna give clinton the benefit of the doubt because

it is extremely important to me to believe that an exceptionally privileged white person is a good person at heart

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

Groovelord Neato posted:

you don't get to do that after the omar poo poo.

Yeah this didn't occur in a vacuum and I don't understand why anyone is acting like it did.

That's a lie; I do understand and it's incredibly galling

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Oh Snapple!
Dec 27, 2005

Endorph posted:

what if we put chelsea clinton and meghan mccain in a room with a muslim woman and the first person to make eye contact without talking around her got to be president of staten island

that poor woman

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply