|
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. |
Sanya12364 Posts
On November 15 2016 09:25 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 09:12 TanGeng wrote:On November 15 2016 08:16 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2016 07:53 TanGeng wrote:On November 15 2016 07:19 Nebuchad wrote:On November 15 2016 06:29 TanGeng wrote:On November 15 2016 06:23 farvacola wrote:
The self-evidence of the truth underpinning a leftist approach to civil rights is not really at issue here, though maybe I'm misunderstanding Cosmic. Instead, I think the issue comes down to using issue-based signposts as a means of ascertaining character. I think this is the morality based approach to issues. Like slavery, abortion, religion, and racism are morality issues where you can be beyond the pale for being on the wrong side of issues, we do have new morality issues by the left. But instead of being framed as morality issues, there is shift to "intelligence" "scientific" or other angles to what is at its core moral judgements. Just two pages ago we had a TL example of someone claiming "smart people have to believe this". It's hard to even have a conversation when there is very little attempt to listen or understand. The shift that you're making is not really warranted. Most of the time, we are having factual discussions rather than moral ones. If the other camp is ignoring facts, and I'm trying to reach it, I'm going to try and reach it by bringing it back on the side of facts, not by accepting that they have a different point of view and that opinions are awesome. Now my opinion can be wrong, that's a given, I can be wrong about the facts and I generally have been, a lot, during my life. But that's going to be determined through a discussion. And if we have that discussion and I'm in the wrong, I don't want you to accept that I have a different point of view and respect that, I want you to show me that I'm wrong, so that I can be given the opportunity to be right instead. I see two different approaches to discussing any issue. The first is genuine discussion with some level of empathy and mutual understanding in the conversation. The moral foundations or value judgements can be different among people in the conversation, and the resulting conclusions can still be different, but at least there is a conversation. The second is an attempt to talk with someone with an inflexible worldview with no attempt to understand anything that might originate from a different set of values or morality. With the religious, it is openly recognized as moral judgements. With the left and the intellectual elite, they may cover it under a layer of intellectual sophistry or scientific sophistry. This group certainly won't appreciate a comparison to religious nuts, but an open discussion is as difficult among the two. Well let's look at what you did there. You've used the word "sophistry" to describe the positions of the left, which is the use of arguments that look logical at face value but are actually invalid. This is a factual claim: you're saying that leftists use false logic, and as such, are wrong. Now this is a very general claim, but if we specify it, it has the capacity to be true. We can have a discussion about it. But it is not very different from what you accuse "the left" (I really dislike the way Americans classify these) of doing. What is wrong with the word selection? I used religious nut to describe similarly indoctrinated and close minded individuals. I am being more specific about how they encase their value judgements to both themselves and the people they attempt to have a discussion with. The word selection is not wrong. It's just evidence of the same mindset that you criticize. Again with the caveat that this is a really general statement, ultimately, the claim that smart people are on the side of the left boils down to "the left tries to use logic, the far right doesn't". The counter presented is that the left uses sophistry, not logic. Now the left can't do both (on the same subject). We can try and see the world from each other's point of view all we want, it won't change the fact that one of those two premises is factually incorrect. My interest in this discussion would be to figure out which one is.
The initial failure isn't about the use of logic at all. It's about being able to connect with people at the same time you are addressing them. It's not a fucking mathematical proof that has definitive factual correctness. It's a pitch on why one set of policies is better than another set [for your target audience].
It doesn't matter what your logic is if you completely ignore your audience.
People from the left coasts might complain about certain insensitivities of these White Working Class, but you'll have the same complaint about insensitivities of the coastal elites not being attentive to the values of the White Working Class.
The failure to connect is compounded by a lack of introspection where that the coastal elites will lord their intellectual superiority over the White Working Class because they are so"logical" about why WWC should vote Democratic.
And if and when these coastal elites strike out by not being able to connect with WWC, it is instead "These WWC are so stupid and dumb."
Do this often enough and the WWC will immediately tune you out.
|
Sad that so many think it's unreasonable for any amount of blame to be legitimately applied; or that people can't accept that blame and attribution of causation has many things which could plausibly asserted depending on the level of analysis.
This vague statement is directed at legallord's remarks; which seek to disparage claims which, while far from perfect, are not entirely without merit either, and are worthy of serious consideration and assessment.
tangeng -> looking at your post above, I find it unclear in relation the post you quoted, as you seem to be going off on a tangent with a different set of claims on a different topic.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 15 2016 11:23 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 11:16 LegalLord wrote:On November 15 2016 11:07 TanGeng wrote:
Democrats were their own worst enemy this election cycle. Between generating a poison pill third party vote, losing their base of the union heavy midwest states, chasing after shadows in Georgia, North Carolina, and Iowa in the final weeks, letting a billionaire of all people to empathize with the working class. What a disaster of a campaign.
The long term demographics are still on the Democrats side. Hopefully someone more prudent and positive runs the campaign for them next cycle.
And yes, Clinton supporters were her own worst enemy. Needs a lot of self reflection before pointing the fingers outward. At this point they're at about the "blame Bernie Sanders supporters and James Comey" phase. Next I think we'll see the Russians be blamed for leaking real emails that paint her in a really unfavorable light, and then Henry Kissinger will be blamed for not endorsing her. If only Kissinger endorsed there is no way she could've lost. The Bernie supporters who didn't vote, Comey who lost complete control of the FBI and made a announcement that turned into nothing, the Russians fucking with the American presidential election by sabotaging a candidate? Are you pretending all of those things didn't have a hand in the over all outcome?
You're missing the forest for the trees. It's not the events that happened as much as how Hillary put herself in a situation to allow these things to happen, and to allow it to turn her campaign into a ticking time bomb.
Why didn't Sanders supporters go vote for her? Because she didn't appeal to them. She took them for granted and wanted to sideline them because they just get in the way. They should have been easy votes. She didn't give them any form of indication that she was on their side, she just doubled down on "fuck Trump" without ever making a real case for herself.
The Comey situation, I have no idea what happened there and I suspect that in a few years we will find out that there were some pretty fucked up dealings in the FBI that led to this entire scenario. But the narrative that would have allowed that to happen was set in motion years ago, and three days' worth of "corruption charge" shouldn't have changed enough votes to matter. I really doubt 1-2% of the electorate was influenced by that letter.
The Russians (operating assumption that it really was them, of course) didn't release any fake documents, they just added fuel to an already chaotic fire and gave ammunition to those who were short of proof of what everyone already knew about how Hillary conducts her work. The DNC leaks gave the Sanders people reason to be further pissed off at her, the Podesta emails gave Trump people the same. Those wouldn't have meant jack shit if the sentiment wasn't already there - they just provided a push. And Hillary added to the narrative by taking all of it as an opportunity to advance a clearly Russophobic agenda.
The problem runs deeper than Sanders or Comey or Putin or any other entity that could be blamed. The real problem lies with the candidate herself and how she did everything in her power to make each of these narratives against her so damn convincing that a wee little push in that direction turned into a wildfire. By blaming them you miss the point about who really was responsible for what happened. It's like blaming the person who leaked the "47 percent" tape for Romney's loss when the real blame is on the person who allowed that narrative to perfectly encompass what people dislike about that candidate.
|
On November 15 2016 11:23 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 11:16 LegalLord wrote:On November 15 2016 11:07 TanGeng wrote:
Democrats were their own worst enemy this election cycle. Between generating a poison pill third party vote, losing their base of the union heavy midwest states, chasing after shadows in Georgia, North Carolina, and Iowa in the final weeks, letting a billionaire of all people to empathize with the working class. What a disaster of a campaign.
The long term demographics are still on the Democrats side. Hopefully someone more prudent and positive runs the campaign for them next cycle.
And yes, Clinton supporters were her own worst enemy. Needs a lot of self reflection before pointing the fingers outward. At this point they're at about the "blame Bernie Sanders supporters and James Comey" phase. Next I think we'll see the Russians be blamed for leaking real emails that paint her in a really unfavorable light, and then Henry Kissinger will be blamed for not endorsing her. If only Kissinger endorsed there is no way she could've lost. The Bernie supporters who didn't vote, Comey who lost complete control of the FBI and made a announcement that turned into nothing, the Russians fucking with the American presidential election by sabotaging a candidate? Are you pretending all of those things didn't have a hand in the over all outcome?
Even if they were, it doesn't help that Clinton drove voters who had voted for Obama twice to Trump.
Also : The Comey situation also could have been avoided by not nominating someone under an FBI investigation, and the damage the Russians did was mainly because it revealed just how raw a deal the DNC gave Sanders. Strategically, Clinton was possibly the worst democratic choice to actually win the general election aside from MAYBE Vermin Supreme (who still might have beaten Trump). It doesn't matter how flawless you would be in office if you can't even make it there.
|
On November 15 2016 11:42 LegalLord wrote:
Why didn't Sanders supporters go vote for her? Because she didn't appeal to them. She took them for granted and wanted to sideline them because they just get in the way. They should have been easy votes. She didn't give them any form of indication that she was on their side, she just doubled down on "fuck Trump" without ever making a real case for herself.
As I said before, Trump didn't appeal to Evangelicals or moderates either, nonetheless apparently they turned out to vote. If the enemy team is throwing in everything including the kitchen sink you haven't chosen the right time to rebel inside your party. The Bernie argument obviously works the other way around, too. Why is it any more legitimate to don't turn out for Hillary instead of not turning out for Bernie? Somehow I didn't get the impression that any Hillary voter would even dream of not voting for Bernie.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 15 2016 11:48 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 11:42 LegalLord wrote:
Why didn't Sanders supporters go vote for her? Because she didn't appeal to them. She took them for granted and wanted to sideline them because they just get in the way. They should have been easy votes. She didn't give them any form of indication that she was on their side, she just doubled down on "fuck Trump" without ever making a real case for herself.
As I said before, Trump didn't appeal to Evangelicals or moderates either, nonetheless apparently they turned out to vote. If the enemy team is throwing in everything including the kitchen sink you haven't chosen the right time to rebel inside your party. The Bernie argument obviously works the other way around, too. Why is it any more legitimate to don't turn out for Hillary instead of not turning out for Bernie? Somehow I didn't get the impression that any Hillary voter would even dream of not voting for Bernie.
What Trump did or didn't do (I won't address if he did) has little bearing on what Hillary should or shouldn't have done. She expected that she could win and that she didn't need the Sanders fanbase to defeat Trump. She could have gotten them on her side and all it would have really taken was a minimal olive branch of some significance to show that she would give them enough representation for them not to feel so terrible about the possibility of voting for her that they would rather not. That didn't work out and it was clear this entire time that the Hillary camp was being quite obtuse about the possibility that she actually needed those people on her side.
|
Paul Ryan wants to dismantle Medicare during Trump's first term.
lol, I'm sure that'll work out well.
|
On November 15 2016 12:21 farvacola wrote:
Paul Ryan wants to dismantle Medicare during Trump's first term.
lol, I'm sure that'll work out well.
Trump more or less opposed entitlement reform during the primaries, it's not happening.
|
On November 15 2016 12:21 farvacola wrote:
Paul Ryan wants to dismantle Medicare during Trump's first term.
lol, I'm sure that'll work out well.
where'd you hear that? sounds pretty far-fetched to me, so makes me suspect it's from one of those trash sources.
|
To a certain extent Hillary was just a politician on the wrong end of cyber crime (podesta's gmail) and the timing of Obamacare and the FBI letter. Trump's rebound at the end has to be explained by something, and it was probably the surrounding events. Hillary caught a significant amount of bad luck at the end and despite her flaws, I'll bet she still would have won without that bad luck.
|
I feel like fundamentally, Trump will never be the one to say that there is no longer enough money for something as president. The idea that he can't deliver is something I can't imagine him ever admitting.
|
Due to being afflicted with sickness and an uncontrollable case of the shits, I haven't been to give this thread the attention that I wanted given the topic, But here's an article that better explains some of what I was trying to convey. Here are some excerpts:
At a certain level, how Trump won is so simple that most pundits—the same people who gave the president-elect no chance of winning—can’t see it. The Republican nominee got enough white votes—especially among the working class, particularly in the upper Mid-West—to offset huge Democratic advantages among minorities and white professionals. This was the Sailer Strategy, named after the insightful blogger who coined the notion back in 2000. Steve Sailer’s essential idea, that the GOP needed to max out the white vote to keep winning national elections in the face of changing demographics, was rejected by most Republicans as smacking of racism.
It cannot be stated too many times that the GOP establishment repeatedly rejected Sailerism. Indeed, leading Republicans often seemed to run in the other direction from its commonsense logic. The facts are clear: that Mitt Romney failed to get many votes from working-class whites in the very places where Trump just attracted them in droves caused the GOP to lose the White House in 2012.
Predictably, the vanquished GOP in November 2012 determined that they needed to get more Hispanics voting Republican. The stakes were clear within days of Romney’s defeat, as I observed at the time:
The GOP has a basic choice to make if it wants to survive as a national party: Get more Hispanics or get more whites. Doing the latter, especially reaching out to whites who are economically hurting, would require the party to conduct a painful self-examination as to why it favors the wealthy so consistently at the expense of average people. Doing the former will require glossy ads, more token brown faces at GOP events, and greater marketing en español yet no real introspection. Of course, the latter course might actually save the Republicans nationally, while the former course is a flight of fancy. Nevertheless, expect bulk purchases of “Yo soy Republican!” t-shirts and bumper-stickers to rise.
Trump adopted the Sailer Strategy—whether he knew it I have no idea—and won handsomely. It would be wrong to impute huge numbers of down-market whites voting for Trump simply to racism, as many on the left predictably are doing. Quite a few Trump voters in swing states like Pennsylvania and Ohio turn out to have voted for Obama—twice. They wanted change, Obama didn’t deliver, so they gave Trump a chance to be the change-agent in Washington they have long sought. The roots of their dissatisfaction are social and economic more than racial, and bien-pensant efforts to portray their legitimate grievances as “hate” reflect the worst of post-modern progressive intolerance.
All the same, it cannot be denied that ethno-racial concerns played a role here—and that it was the Democrats who opened that can of worms. Since the beginning of the century, liberals have been crowing about the “emerging Democratic majority” being delivered by changing demographics, heavily fueled by immigration (legal or not). President Obama’s reelection four years ago seemed to conclusively prove that the “new” America—morally superior to the old, white-dominated one—had arrived, and the Republicans were on life support, waiting for GOP voters to go the way of the dinosaur. As one of Obama’s media acolytes hailed the 2012 victory:
President Barack Obama did not just win reelection tonight. His victory signaled the irreversible triumph of a new, 21st-century America: multiracial, multi-ethnic, global in outlook and moving beyond centuries of racial, sexual, marital and religious tradition.
This was more of the Marxistoid “right side of History” blather that Team Obama has indulged in for the last eight years—and it was utterly wrong. To the surprise of no one who understands human nature, many whites didn’t appreciate being told that they had to die off for “progress” to be achieved. They didn’t like being derided by their betters as “bitter clingers” with their guns and Bibles, and they especially didn’t like being termed “deplorables” unworthy of compassion or consideration. In the last days of Hillary’s doomed campaign, its contempt for a huge chunk of the American population had become so blatant that one of her top celebrity surrogates publicly hailed the “extinction” of straight white men as a step in the right direction.
Trump is no political genius. He made an appeal to working-class whites, who correctly felt that the Democrats viewed them with undisguised contempt and didn’t want their vote. The “emerging Democratic majority” thesis included the need to get some of those whites, a legacy Democratic voting bloc, to win national elections; under Obama, his party decided they didn’t need them at all, which was a terrible, almost incomprehensible mistake. It shouldn’t be necessary to point out that running against working-class whites—at almost 40 percent of the electorate, the biggest voting bloc in America—is the definition of political insanity.
Yet progressives somehow managed not to see the nose right on their face. Hence President Trump. What commentators term “identity politics” has now become normative, thanks to the Democrats indulging in it, and Trump is now aping them. It would be more correct to term this what it actually is: nationalism. Ethno-racial nationalism is an enormously potent political force; wise politicians know this and employ it cautiously. Nationalism arouses genuine passion and is a political motivator like no other, which it explains why a majority of white women voted for Trump, to the bitter consternation of outraged feminists.
....
In recent decades, Washington has advocated that Black, Hispanic and Asian nationalisms are “good” (Americans of Middle Eastern descent may soon be added to the good list) while White Nationalism is “bad.” However, average whites—meaning those not indoctrinated in critical race theory in college—will never see it that way. The problem with pushing identity politics among minorities as a political weapon is that the majority eventually realizes they have an identity too. As I explained back in early 2015, before Donald Trump entered the presidential race, “However verboten discussion of White Nationalism is at present among polite Americans, it is unavoidable that this will become an issue in the future, with potentially explosive consequences.”
....
There’s not much for Republicans to crow about, however, despite their enormous political windfall. Trump won precisely because he ignored or repudiated most longstanding “conservative” policies. Working-class whites have little interest in privatizing Social Security or open borders or engaging in endless losing wars in the Middle East. The GOP has changed, only their leaders seem not to have noticed. The Republicans are now the White party, de facto, whether they want to be or not. American politics will never be the same, and 2016 looks like a landmark election in the manner of 1980, 1932, or 1860, each of which transformed the United States. Buckle up, it looks to be a bumpy ride ahead in the emerging era of competing American ethno-nationalisms.
Source. The whole article is worth a read.
|
|
|
On November 15 2016 12:24 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 12:21 farvacola wrote:
Paul Ryan wants to dismantle Medicare during Trump's first term.
lol, I'm sure that'll work out well. where'd you hear that? sounds pretty far-fetched to me, so makes me suspect it's from one of those trash sources.
Paul Ryan has long wanted to privatize Medicare and hinted that he might do it in an interview recently. It appears to be a pre-emptive reading of the meaning of his words by liberals, though (which is why I'm linking Salon as a source rather than the actual interview, as a lot of it is hypothesis).
House Speaker Paul Ryan has his eyes on privatizing Medicare.
The Wisconsin Republican leader, who has long expressed his disapproval of the Affordable Care Act, will also be the leading voice in health-care reform.
“What people don’t realize is that Medicare is going broke, that Medicare is going to have price controls. Because of Obamacare, Medicaid is in fiscal straits,” Ryan said in an interview with Fox News Thursday. “So you have to deal with those issues if you’re going to repeal and replace Obamacare. Medicare has got some serious problems because of Obamacare. Those things are part of our plan to replace Obamacare.”
Ryan has advocated transforming Medicare from a federal program to a private model where seniors would rely on federal subsidies to buy private insurance.
President-elect Donald Trump, meanwhile, has been vague on his health plan.
“Abolishing Medicare, I don’t think you’ll get away with that one,” Trump said last year. “It’s actually a program that’s worked. It’s a program that some people love, actually.”
Trump’s new transition website, however, describes a health policy agenda that potentially embraces Ryan’s proposals. “Modernize Medicare, so that it will be ready for the challenges with the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation — and beyond,” the website reads.
Medicare’s trustees say that the “Part A” trust fund — the costliest component of Medicare, covering hospital visits — is set to become insolvent in 2028. In 2009, before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the trustees projected that fund would go broke in 2017.
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/11/paul-ryan-wants-donald-trump-to-let-him-privatize-medicare-gut-obamacare/
|
I'm not sure of the specifics, but there were a lot of people saying that the letter was not in line with the policy in place by the FBI for such a situation. But who knows with all of the lies and fake news/media recently.
|
On November 15 2016 12:23 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 12:21 farvacola wrote:
Paul Ryan wants to dismantle Medicare during Trump's first term.
lol, I'm sure that'll work out well. Trump more or less opposed entitlement reform during the primaries, it's not happening.
are we sure that Trump is actually going to make decisions instead of just doing whatever GOP politicians tell him to do?
|
On November 15 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
For all intents and purposes Hillary gave every indication that she had no intention of changing anything about her policy. I wanted to see her throw an olive branch in the progressives' direction in her VP choice - no dice, she chose someone who was literally a carbon copy of herself. I wanted to see her appeal to the people who were skeptical of her, especially from the base which should have easily voted for her, in the convention. Nope, just an endless stream of identity politics with a brief and evidently sidelined appearance by the progressive stars (Warren and Sanders). I also wanted to see her take responsibility for her own past mistakes and promise to make them better - this wasn't done in any meaningful way.
This was arrogance, pure and simple. The idea that the other choice is so impossibly unfeasible for people to vote for, that she could get away with anything she wanted in the process of getting her win. And while I can't say that I was one of the ones brave enough to send that "fuck you" to her attitude (I have my own living situation to worry about and the status quo doesn't hurt me as much as Trump might), I absolutely can't feel bad about seeing her get this completely and utterly deserved comeuppance. The hardcore Sanders leftists who voted for her probably feel the exact same way right now.
She could have gone with sanders. It still is beyond me why they didn't pick sanders.
Probably because he was not part of the party elite. He did have more then sufficient support from the democratic voter base and would probably have won the primary if he would have had support from the party,instead the party working against them.
Sanders was perfect,but they come with caine.
Can any democrat here give me a solid argument for not picking sanders as vp?
|
On November 15 2016 12:43 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
For all intents and purposes Hillary gave every indication that she had no intention of changing anything about her policy. I wanted to see her throw an olive branch in the progressives' direction in her VP choice - no dice, she chose someone who was literally a carbon copy of herself. I wanted to see her appeal to the people who were skeptical of her, especially from the base which should have easily voted for her, in the convention. Nope, just an endless stream of identity politics with a brief and evidently sidelined appearance by the progressive stars (Warren and Sanders). I also wanted to see her take responsibility for her own past mistakes and promise to make them better - this wasn't done in any meaningful way.
This was arrogance, pure and simple. The idea that the other choice is so impossibly unfeasible for people to vote for, that she could get away with anything she wanted in the process of getting her win. And while I can't say that I was one of the ones brave enough to send that "fuck you" to her attitude (I have my own living situation to worry about and the status quo doesn't hurt me as much as Trump might), I absolutely can't feel bad about seeing her get this completely and utterly deserved comeuppance. The hardcore Sanders leftists who voted for her probably feel the exact same way right now. She could have gone with sanders. It still is beyond me why they didn't pick sanders. Probably because he was not part of the party elite. He did have more then sufficient support from the democratic voter base and would probably have won the primary if he would have had support from the party,instead the party working against them. Sanders was perfect,but they come with caine. Can any democrat here give me a solid argument for not picking sanders as vp?
Wall Street doesn't like Warren and Kaine (Warren would have been as equally fine as a choice really).
|
it's hard to say.
It definitely goes somewhat against FBI policy and the existing law, but given the reasons for informing congress, there's a fair case to be made it should've been done.
Partisanship is too high at this time for a decent review of the matter, it'll be years or maybe a decade before people can look at it with sufficiently independent eyes to figure out what should have been done.
There should definitely be a review of the decision, and a policy put in place so that it's not up to the discretion of the FBI if such a thing happens in the future.
It'd have been preferable if the letter could've been sent to congress under one of the secrecy rules which would prohibit revealing its contents. after all, comey didn't leak it to the press, comey sent the letter to congress, then some congress-people revealed it to the press. rather unsurpising of course, but if the congresspeople were required to keep the letter secret, they'd still have been informed without it being so partisan an issue. though politicians being the scum they are, they'd have probably found a way to leak it anyways.
All this of course stems out of the one of the more fundamental challenges that some people jump to conclusions in an unsound fashion, so the legal system has to try to work around that reality rather than being more straightforward.
|
On November 15 2016 12:43 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2016 10:57 LegalLord wrote:
For all intents and purposes Hillary gave every indication that she had no intention of changing anything about her policy. I wanted to see her throw an olive branch in the progressives' direction in her VP choice - no dice, she chose someone who was literally a carbon copy of herself. I wanted to see her appeal to the people who were skeptical of her, especially from the base which should have easily voted for her, in the convention. Nope, just an endless stream of identity politics with a brief and evidently sidelined appearance by the progressive stars (Warren and Sanders). I also wanted to see her take responsibility for her own past mistakes and promise to make them better - this wasn't done in any meaningful way.
This was arrogance, pure and simple. The idea that the other choice is so impossibly unfeasible for people to vote for, that she could get away with anything she wanted in the process of getting her win. And while I can't say that I was one of the ones brave enough to send that "fuck you" to her attitude (I have my own living situation to worry about and the status quo doesn't hurt me as much as Trump might), I absolutely can't feel bad about seeing her get this completely and utterly deserved comeuppance. The hardcore Sanders leftists who voted for her probably feel the exact same way right now. She could have gone with sanders. It still is beyond me why they didn't pick sanders. Probably because he was not part of the party elite. He did have more then sufficient support from the democratic voter base and would probably have won the primary if he would have had support from the party,instead the party working against them. Sanders was perfect,but they come with caine. Can any democrat here give me a solid argument for not picking sanders as vp?
Part of it would be that Kaine is in a swing state. The common thinking is a VP will boost the president's chances in that state by about 2%, so theoretically, it did possibly cause her to win VA but, obviously, it wasn't enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
