|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 02:36 Blisse wrote:
I'll happy with the result of this election if Trump is able to bring greater awareness to the issues that rural Americans face given that it seems like the US is ruled by urban America and the only solution thus far has been to get educated or move to the cities. Bonus if he's actually able to effect positive change, which is what I think anti-Trump still doubts.
there is no solution. this guy sells scams to this same group of people for a living.
|
|
|
On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else
No, they're part of the Bernie plan. Your argument that Bernie couldn't achieve his desired changes done were a double edged sword against Clinton. As she continued to add on other people's policies to her platform it became quite obvious that she was only paying lip service. Bernie expressed a few clear policy goals. Hillary lied to us and said "Sure I want everything you want!". To believe that it would be physically possible to accomplish a quarter of what she said she was going to do would require excessive use of one's imagination. Her goals were not authentic, realistic, or what is needed to even start to think about nudging this country back in the right direction. Bernie didn't promise the world. He proposed several large things. If he achieved even one of them it would have been a massive blessing to the future of country. Hillary could achieve half of her tiny policy goals and it still wouldn't correct the course of this nation.
|
On November 10 2016 02:36 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:34 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else You don't need "a plan", you need someone who incarnate it and someone who is willing to say it with a simple language (because all those things are SIMPLE). Trump won with like 700 words I read somewhere ? this is the thing, the importance of the leftwing activists in the process of political communication. instead of pushing a positive version of her platform, that group is just engaged on a witch hunt against her based on crimes by association. the left is dysfunctional as a political force.
It's not the left, it's politics ... People can't trust someone who comes from the establishment who has a program aimed to "reform" the establishment. That's just how it is. Maybe for you it's sad, and I kinda agree (talking ideas is way better than talking about individuals) but sadly people actually have more trust towards an individual that they know than ideas (and it's not a completly stupid behavior).
You should read Weber, to him the democratic institutions were designed to permit the arrival of charismatic people that could force the bureaucracy in changing its behavior / direction, place finality above rationality. Trump is that : a charismatic buffoon who will try to force the institution in doing what he and his electorate desire. Weber was not a leftist.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 02:39 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else Honest question : did you actually expect HRC to do any of these things aside from pay token lip service? She was too deeply in bed with Wall Street to have any modicum of credibility, and her refusal to release her paid speeches pretty much solidified that notion. The optics of the email scandal was magnified in part by her own mishandling of the issue, and did not help with her credibility problem either. Trump not releasing his tax returns turned out to be much less of an issue because almost everyone identifies with finding every possible way to reduce their tax burdens. I'm not saying it is right - it just happened to be the way things played out.
she has been working on these issues for decades. her staff and policy team have been working on these issues for decades.
you don't just witch hunt someone for speaking at a core financial institution. especially when you already know what was being said and why.
|
On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else
She said she would do some of that stuff, but I think what she would actually do is pretty limited. I think she would have been a better president than trump (in regards to what I see as helpful for our future), but I certainly don't think she would have "shaken up the establishment".
i mean... track her funding..
|
On November 10 2016 02:39 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else Honest question : did you actually expect HRC to do any of these things aside from pay token lip service? She was too deeply in bed with Wall Street to have any modicum of credibility, and her refusal to release her paid speeches pretty much solidified that notion. The optics of the email scandal was magnified in part by her own mishandling of the issue, and did not help with her credibility problem either. Trump not releasing his tax returns turned out to be much less of an issue because almost everyone identifies with finding every possible way to reduce their tax burdens. I'm not saying it is right - it just happened to be the way things played out.
The difference is that there's a growing part of the democratic part of senate that is pushing for those issues (Bernie, Warren, et al.) which Clinton would rely on to get anything done. I don't think you can say the same about the Republicans backing Trump.
I also still think that a lot of Trump's scandals didn't gain traction because of how a lot of media has chosen to portray itself recently (basically glorified clickbait fluff) + the rise of social media news echo chambers through Facebook and what not. Go back 8 or 12 years and any of a dozen Trump stories would have sunk him very fast.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 02:41 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:36 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:34 WhiteDog wrote:On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else You don't need "a plan", you need someone who incarnate it and someone who is willing to say it with a simple language (because all those things are SIMPLE). Trump won with like 700 words I read somewhere ? this is the thing, the importance of the leftwing activists in the process of political communication. instead of pushing a positive version of her platform, that group is just engaged on a witch hunt against her based on crimes by association. the left is dysfunctional as a political force. It's not the left, it's politics ... People can't trust someone who comes from the establishment who has a program aimed to "reform" the establishment. That's just how it is. Maybe for you it's sad, and I kinda agree (talking ideas is way better than talking about people) but sadly people actually have more trust towards people than ideas (and it's not a stupid behavior). You should read Weber, to him the democratic institutions were designed to permit the arrival of charismatic people that could force the bureaucracy in changing its behavior / direction, place finality above rationality. Trump is that : a charismatic buffoon who will try to force the institution in doing what he and his electorate desire. Weber was not a leftist.
weber was fitting a theory onto observations. if the support apparatus worked correctly, she could have won in theory. i'm just saying that, clear problem in communication exists, and reasons for this failure widespread.
|
Plansix was just temp banned for 90 days by Sn0_Man.
That account was created on 2011-04-03 05:22:58 and had 14501 posts.
Reason: By Request
For those wondering what happened to P6. This is going to be a very quiet thread once all the election heat dies down, with both kwark and p6 banned. With all of kwizach's talk about a banbet, I'm surprised he's still here. Fiwifaki must be kicking himself for squeeming out of that money bet, though.
|
On November 10 2016 02:36 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:22 farvacola wrote:
Trump may have actually opened the door wider for socialism than Hillary would. This so much. At least a real left should finally rise in the USA.
Doubt it, I expect 8 years of Trump to thoroughly disillusion the anti-establishment crowd and lead to an insipid Democrat winning in 2024.
|
Also this is probably the most realistic explanation of this election I've seen so far.
Point #3 hits very close to home.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 02:42 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else She said she would do some of that stuff, but I think what she would actually do is pretty limited. I think she would have been a better president than trump (in regards to what I see as helpful for our future), but I certainly don't think she would have "shaken up the establishment". i mean... track her funding..
not every billionaire is evil, or motivated by financial gain. that may be the broad narrative from the activist media but it is not true.
|
On November 10 2016 02:31 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:17 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 02:15 Nevuk wrote:
If the DNC really doubles down on attacking Bernie for the loss they may flat out lose millennial support for a generation. Wait, are they doing this? If democrats lose union whites, democrats lose everything. Social justice can only get you so far. The progressive wing is basically out for blood already, while the establishment is just in mourning. Kind of wish GH wasn't banned to get a more inside the scene look at it. When the establishment wakes up I'm not sure what happens though. The hill had an article talking about how there's no presumptive leader for the Democratic party left. Pelosi, Chuck schumer aren't exactly brimming with charisma. Warren/Sanders are their best bets but can you see the DNC tolerating that?
The leader shouldn't be someone the DNC "tolerates", the leader should be someone that excites the base. They also need to find out who their base is.
|
On November 10 2016 02:46 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:31 Nevuk wrote:On November 10 2016 02:17 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 02:15 Nevuk wrote:
If the DNC really doubles down on attacking Bernie for the loss they may flat out lose millennial support for a generation. Wait, are they doing this? If democrats lose union whites, democrats lose everything. Social justice can only get you so far. The progressive wing is basically out for blood already, while the establishment is just in mourning. Kind of wish GH wasn't banned to get a more inside the scene look at it. When the establishment wakes up I'm not sure what happens though. The hill had an article talking about how there's no presumptive leader for the Democratic party left. Pelosi, Chuck schumer aren't exactly brimming with charisma. Warren/Sanders are their best bets but can you see the DNC tolerating that? The leader shouldn't be someone the DNC "tolerates", the leader should be someone that excites the base. They also need to find out who their base is.
Their base will be workers who are finally able to align their misfortune with a thoroughly red government 
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the kind of politics that excites the base right now is either very leftist or attached to a charismatic leader that is not yet here.
it's a problem if your base is bought up on bad politics. that's all there is to it.
|
Sadly oneofthem, Bernie Sanders was both.
|
On November 10 2016 02:44 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:42 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:30 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:29 travis wrote:On November 10 2016 02:25 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 02:20 Jormundr wrote:On November 10 2016 02:04 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 01:55 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Now Obama appoint Sanders as the DNC Chair and get the fuck out of the way so he can start rebuilding. Seriously. We need populism. People are focusing on the wrong part of Bernie. Bernie was really distinguished from Clinton from a left/far-left perspective, but that's not why Bernie crushed Clinton in Wisconsin. He crushed her in Wisconsin because he reached out to underemployed whites. He told them he would defend them and that the corporate/political elite were stealing from them. That got them to back Bernie and it is why Bernie crushed Clinton. Clinton adopting all the liberal parts of Bernie's platform without the direct protectionist populism was missing the point. This election had nothing to do with left vs right. It was populism vs the elite. my spin is it was about irresponsible but gratifying politics vs sensible politics. the irrationality and emotions won out. Your message is that we have to eat shit because that's the way things are. That is why Hillary lost. Your definition of sensible assumes that only wealthy people are important. That definition used to be true, but in the information age that hubris is easily exploited. It is in no way unreasonable to think that massive change can be achieved if desired. The problem is that Hillary could not even acknowledge that the working and middle classes are in the worst position they've ever been as a result of years of the same half measures she proposes. what exactly is your policy scenario here? pretty curious. what does a 'not eat shit' plan look like. making the rich pay their fair share of taxes, increased social program funding (moving towards greater socialization in general), holding the elite accountable for their actions to (for the most part) the same standards as everyone else, putting limits on lobbying and curbing corruption. I think actually trying to do these things would be a good start. this is the thing, these are all part of the HRC plan. what else She said she would do some of that stuff, but I think what she would actually do is pretty limited. I think she would have been a better president than trump (in regards to what I see as helpful for our future), but I certainly don't think she would have "shaken up the establishment". i mean... track her funding.. not every billionaire is evil, or motivated by financial gain. that may be the broad narrative from the activist media but it is not true.
The bible says otherwise.
|
So what do we think that Trump horse-trades to get his wall?
|
On November 10 2016 02:43 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:36 TheDwf wrote:On November 10 2016 02:22 farvacola wrote:
Trump may have actually opened the door wider for socialism than Hillary would. This so much. At least a real left should finally rise in the USA. Doubt it, I expect 8 years of Trump to thoroughly disillusion the anti-establishment crowd and lead to an insipid Democrat winning in 2024.
Left-wingers will have no choice but to fight against the right that just won. Social movements, the Sanders campaign—all that energy won't magically disappear. Now that Republicans have all powers, they better organize to fight.
Edit: I have also faith in the new left-leaning generations. 
|
On November 10 2016 02:46 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:31 Nevuk wrote:On November 10 2016 02:17 Mohdoo wrote:On November 10 2016 02:15 Nevuk wrote:
If the DNC really doubles down on attacking Bernie for the loss they may flat out lose millennial support for a generation. Wait, are they doing this? If democrats lose union whites, democrats lose everything. Social justice can only get you so far. The progressive wing is basically out for blood already, while the establishment is just in mourning. Kind of wish GH wasn't banned to get a more inside the scene look at it. When the establishment wakes up I'm not sure what happens though. The hill had an article talking about how there's no presumptive leader for the Democratic party left. Pelosi, Chuck schumer aren't exactly brimming with charisma. Warren/Sanders are their best bets but can you see the DNC tolerating that? The leader shouldn't be someone the DNC "tolerates", the leader should be someone that excites the base. They also need to find out who their base is.
I mean it certainly didn't matter that the RNC was headed by someone no one cared about
On November 10 2016 02:50 xDaunt wrote:
So what do we think that Trump horse-trades to get his wall?
I think he horse-traded the wall away already and walked it back quite a bit unless I missed something
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
