|
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. |
On December 22 2016 08:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 07:04 Nevuk wrote:Only one of these is remotely credible (the washington times ones) and it flat out says that Warren would have been the second best pick after Sanders according to polling. Also, all the rest are talking about the backlash to Warren endorsing Clinton, not about a backlash to Clinton considering Warren. It's a statement about how heavily disliked Clinton is, not how much progressives would have hated her as a VP choice. You do recall that there was never an official announcement. The backlash came when it was rumored that Hillary and Warren would have some private chats which was immediately followed by attacks on Warren. Quickly after the backlash Kain got selected. Here's a few more if you didn't like the first set of sources. One of them showing images of the attacks on Warren. Including relevant quotes if you dislike reading the articles being shared. http://www.npr.org/2016/06/09/481449658/elizabeth-warren-to-back-hillary-clinton"But there was immediate backlash online to Warren's anticipated nomination. Many supporters took to her Facebook page with profane comments, calling her a "sell out" for not endorsing Sanders." http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/elizabeth-warrens-facebook-fans-clinton-endorsement-noooooooooooo"After news broke Thursday afternoon that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the progressive hero from Massachusetts, would endorse Hillary Clinton on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show on Thursday night, Bernie Sanders' fans took to Facebook to voice their frustration."
I don't think it's really relevant. This sort of smoke and mirrors approach to the election in hindsight only serves to detract attention away from the actual flaws with Hillary's pick in lieu of examining possible flaws with hypothetical picks. Especially because it's basically a refrain among non-Clinton liberals that Kaine was rewarded with the VP pick for giving DWS the DNC chair position off of her losing 2008 campaign - ie, they literally don't believe that Clinton ever actually considered a different choice, and that her choice was exactly tainted with the whiff of quid pro quo corruption that she had practically bathed in for years and was never able to wash clean of, and to most appearances, never even even tried.
I've been told there's wikileaks emails that prove (or at least heavily imply) this by numerous people. I'm not going out of my way to find those emails, though, and it's the kind of claim that is far, far easier to have someone believe than it is to have someone disprove. Call it fake news if you will.
|
On December 22 2016 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 08:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 08:16 Mohdoo wrote:On December 22 2016 06:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 06:06 Mohdoo wrote:And you are saying that this anger was in defense of Clinton, rather than disappointed in Warren? I'm saying that if getting a far left candidate gets you backlash, then the only recourse is to grab a moderate candidate to grab from voters who won't backlash. There's a reason I called her appointment of Kaine the worst mistake her campaign made in this election cycle. But when even Elizabeth Warren gets the kind of backlash from Bernie supporters what choice did she have? Fidel Castro? Zombie Lenin? How more left than Warren could Hillary have gone? I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the backlash. Bernie supporters would have cheered for, and often did drooled over a Sanders/Warren ticket. But Bernie supporters were even disappointed in Bernie himself when he finally endorsed Clinton. The issue is Clinton. I was not analyzing the backlash, I was simply informing people of what happened. Hillary began the process of getting a liberal VP, but instead of being united by the prospect the BernieBros attacked the liberal candidate instead. What choice did Hillary have if running the far left candidate would cause hate from the Bernie side of the aisle--so instead she picked the "safe pick" of Kaine. I don't really give a fuck what reasons BernieBros felt was justified for attacking a person they said they liked just because she was aiming to find a middle ground between Hillary and Bernie. Uncaring purists that don't want to listen to reason or arguments is the reason Bernie did not have the support system needed to win a primary. Its the reason why he jumps in and out of loyalty to the democrats to simply fit his needs instead of trying to fit the needs of the people as a whole. His angle is not to install liberal policies, his goal is to simply yell every other year so that people get to praise him for being a rebel, never really wanting to do the work or commit the effort needed to make any lasting change to anything. And even all that is irrelevant to the fact that the only reason Kaine became the biggest mistake of the Hillary campaign is because BernieBros attacked Warren. I don't care what the reason they had for attacking her. It's an interesting world view that arrives at the conclusion that Bernie is the selfish one and the Democratic party is the one really fighting for the people. I'm not the one who believes being divided is a better way to push liberal legislation than being united. That's Bernie. No one is against unity, just matters what we're uniting around. Pushing fracking, cozying up to Wall st, seeking Kissinger's endorsement, deporting desperate children fleeing danger to "send their parents a message", lying, etc... weren't things many on the left wanted to unite around/ignore. Democratic party would have been united as a mutha with Bernie on the top of the ticket. What it boils down to is Hillary, not BernieBros, no matter how much you twist things to try to fit that story. They/we were supporting the Bernie that told us not to (listen to him telling us to vote for her). It was on her, and she failed.
Twisting?
Who was the one trying to contend Obama's second run during 2012?
Bernie.
Who was not a member of the democratic party until he needed some money to kick start his campaign?
Bernie
Who was the one who jumped ship when the democratic party lost?
Bernie
Who was the one who was behind in all metrics but decided to extend the campaign trail instead of unifying the party?
Bernie
Who is the one who actively tells people he is not a democrat yet expects democrats to support him?
Bernie
Now you may not like the Democratic Party, and that's fine for you to think that GH. But the Democratic Party works as a party because loyalty allows them to stand stronger together than they do split apart. Bernie has shown zero capability of uniting the party, nada, zilch. Assuming he would perform better against Trump than he did against Clinton is making the same mistake Nader made by assuming that high turnout in his speeches meant high turnout in the polls.
You know why the Republicans won 2016? Because no matter how much they hated each other they were willing to swallow their pride and work towards a greater good.
Bernie and his followers would rather the world burn than compromise. They don't care about people that need help, they care about feeling moral superiority.
|
On December 22 2016 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 08:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 08:16 Mohdoo wrote:On December 22 2016 06:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 06:06 Mohdoo wrote:And you are saying that this anger was in defense of Clinton, rather than disappointed in Warren? I'm saying that if getting a far left candidate gets you backlash, then the only recourse is to grab a moderate candidate to grab from voters who won't backlash. There's a reason I called her appointment of Kaine the worst mistake her campaign made in this election cycle. But when even Elizabeth Warren gets the kind of backlash from Bernie supporters what choice did she have? Fidel Castro? Zombie Lenin? How more left than Warren could Hillary have gone? I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the backlash. Bernie supporters would have cheered for, and often did drooled over a Sanders/Warren ticket. But Bernie supporters were even disappointed in Bernie himself when he finally endorsed Clinton. The issue is Clinton. I was not analyzing the backlash, I was simply informing people of what happened. Hillary began the process of getting a liberal VP, but instead of being united by the prospect the BernieBros attacked the liberal candidate instead. What choice did Hillary have if running the far left candidate would cause hate from the Bernie side of the aisle--so instead she picked the "safe pick" of Kaine. I don't really give a fuck what reasons BernieBros felt was justified for attacking a person they said they liked just because she was aiming to find a middle ground between Hillary and Bernie. Uncaring purists that don't want to listen to reason or arguments is the reason Bernie did not have the support system needed to win a primary. Its the reason why he jumps in and out of loyalty to the democrats to simply fit his needs instead of trying to fit the needs of the people as a whole. His angle is not to install liberal policies, his goal is to simply yell every other year so that people get to praise him for being a rebel, never really wanting to do the work or commit the effort needed to make any lasting change to anything. And even all that is irrelevant to the fact that the only reason Kaine became the biggest mistake of the Hillary campaign is because BernieBros attacked Warren. I don't care what the reason they had for attacking her. It's an interesting world view that arrives at the conclusion that Bernie is the selfish one and the Democratic party is the one really fighting for the people. I'm not the one who believes being divided is a better way to push liberal legislation than being united. That's Bernie. No one is against unity, just matters what we're uniting around. Pushing fracking, cozying up to Wall st, seeking Kissinger's endorsement, deporting desperate children fleeing danger to "send their parents a message", lying, etc... weren't things many on the left wanted to unite around/ignore. Democratic party would have been united as a mutha with Bernie on the top of the ticket. What it boils down to is Hillary, not BernieBros, no matter how much you twist things to try to fit that story. They don't even support bernie himself when he says to go with clinton. They/we were supporting the Bernie that told us not to (listen to him telling us to vote for her). It was on her, and she failed. Twisting? Who was the one trying to contend Obama's second run during 2012? Bernie. Who was not a member of the democratic party until he needed some money to kick start his campaign? Bernie Who was the one who jumped ship when the democratic party lost? Bernie Who was the one who was behind in all metrics but decided to extend the campaign trail instead of unifying the party? Bernie Who is the one who actively tells people he is not a democrat yet expects democrats to support him? Bernie Now you may not like the Democratic Party, and that's fine for you to think that GH. But the Democratic Party works as a party because loyalty allows them to stand stronger together than they do split apart. Bernie has shown zero capability of uniting the party, nada, zilch. Assuming he would perform better against Trump than he did against Clinton is making the same mistake Nader made by assuming that high turnout in his speeches meant high turnout in the polls. You know why the Republicans won 2016? Because no matter how much they hated each other they were willing to swallow their pride and work towards a greater good.Bernie and his followers would rather the world burn than compromise. They don't care about people that need help, they care about feeling moral superiority.
We clearly inhabit two different planets, as such, I think this conversation has run it's course.
|
On December 22 2016 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 08:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 08:16 Mohdoo wrote:On December 22 2016 06:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 06:06 Mohdoo wrote:And you are saying that this anger was in defense of Clinton, rather than disappointed in Warren? I'm saying that if getting a far left candidate gets you backlash, then the only recourse is to grab a moderate candidate to grab from voters who won't backlash. There's a reason I called her appointment of Kaine the worst mistake her campaign made in this election cycle. But when even Elizabeth Warren gets the kind of backlash from Bernie supporters what choice did she have? Fidel Castro? Zombie Lenin? How more left than Warren could Hillary have gone? I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the backlash. Bernie supporters would have cheered for, and often did drooled over a Sanders/Warren ticket. But Bernie supporters were even disappointed in Bernie himself when he finally endorsed Clinton. The issue is Clinton. I was not analyzing the backlash, I was simply informing people of what happened. Hillary began the process of getting a liberal VP, but instead of being united by the prospect the BernieBros attacked the liberal candidate instead. What choice did Hillary have if running the far left candidate would cause hate from the Bernie side of the aisle--so instead she picked the "safe pick" of Kaine. I don't really give a fuck what reasons BernieBros felt was justified for attacking a person they said they liked just because she was aiming to find a middle ground between Hillary and Bernie. Uncaring purists that don't want to listen to reason or arguments is the reason Bernie did not have the support system needed to win a primary. Its the reason why he jumps in and out of loyalty to the democrats to simply fit his needs instead of trying to fit the needs of the people as a whole. His angle is not to install liberal policies, his goal is to simply yell every other year so that people get to praise him for being a rebel, never really wanting to do the work or commit the effort needed to make any lasting change to anything. And even all that is irrelevant to the fact that the only reason Kaine became the biggest mistake of the Hillary campaign is because BernieBros attacked Warren. I don't care what the reason they had for attacking her. It's an interesting world view that arrives at the conclusion that Bernie is the selfish one and the Democratic party is the one really fighting for the people. I'm not the one who believes being divided is a better way to push liberal legislation than being united. That's Bernie. No one is against unity, just matters what we're uniting around. Pushing fracking, cozying up to Wall st, seeking Kissinger's endorsement, deporting desperate children fleeing danger to "send their parents a message", lying, etc... weren't things many on the left wanted to unite around/ignore. Democratic party would have been united as a mutha with Bernie on the top of the ticket. What it boils down to is Hillary, not BernieBros, no matter how much you twist things to try to fit that story. They don't even support bernie himself when he says to go with clinton. They/we were supporting the Bernie that told us not to (listen to him telling us to vote for her). It was on her, and she failed. Twisting? Who was the one trying to contend Obama's second run during 2012? Bernie. Who was not a member of the democratic party until he needed some money to kick start his campaign? Bernie Who was the one who jumped ship when the democratic party lost? Bernie Who was the one who was behind in all metrics but decided to extend the campaign trail instead of unifying the party? Bernie Who is the one who actively tells people he is not a democrat yet expects democrats to support him? Bernie Now you may not like the Democratic Party, and that's fine for you to think that GH. But the Democratic Party works as a party because loyalty allows them to stand stronger together than they do split apart. Bernie has shown zero capability of uniting the party, nada, zilch. Assuming he would perform better against Trump than he did against Clinton is making the same mistake Nader made by assuming that high turnout in his speeches meant high turnout in the polls. You know why the Republicans won 2016? Because no matter how much they hated each other they were willing to swallow their pride and work towards a greater good. Bernie and his followers would rather the world burn than compromise. They don't care about people that need help, they care about feeling moral superiority.
Obama in 2007-2008 did more harm to HRC than Bernie ever tried to do. The reason the Bernie supporters didn't turn out is because she never successfully appealed to them - which is a mistake Obama never made. PUMA people were just as resistant as Bernouts, but Obama pandered to and coddled them, holding them in his lap and cooing soft promises of coal jobs into their ears. The closest that Hillary came to appealing to her runner up's supporters was the DNC changing its party platform. That wasn't (or shouldn't have been) a direct action by her, and should not have been taken as one.
There's a reason why the worst campaign in the history of the US should be treated with massive derision when people try to defend almost any of its actions by pointing to something other than members of its campaign or the choices it made.
|
Two Democratic members of Congress want three federal agencies to work together to get a more accurate count of coal miners suffering from progressive massive fibrosis, the worst stage of the fatal disease known as black lung.
The request is a response to an NPR investigation that shows 10 times as many cases of the advanced stage of black lung as identified and reported by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
"This shocking report requires a full accounting of the number of known cases of advanced black lung disease," said Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., who joined Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., in asking federal agencies to respond.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/21/506495339/lawmakers-seek-better-count-of-advanced-black-lung-disease
meanwhile everyone but NPR seems to be continuing to ignore the rust belt. Guess newstations would rather cover why they were wrong than fix it
|
On December 22 2016 08:59 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 08:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 07:04 Nevuk wrote:Only one of these is remotely credible (the washington times ones) and it flat out says that Warren would have been the second best pick after Sanders according to polling. Also, all the rest are talking about the backlash to Warren endorsing Clinton, not about a backlash to Clinton considering Warren. It's a statement about how heavily disliked Clinton is, not how much progressives would have hated her as a VP choice. You do recall that there was never an official announcement. The backlash came when it was rumored that Hillary and Warren would have some private chats which was immediately followed by attacks on Warren. Quickly after the backlash Kain got selected. Here's a few more if you didn't like the first set of sources. One of them showing images of the attacks on Warren. Including relevant quotes if you dislike reading the articles being shared. http://www.npr.org/2016/06/09/481449658/elizabeth-warren-to-back-hillary-clinton"But there was immediate backlash online to Warren's anticipated nomination. Many supporters took to her Facebook page with profane comments, calling her a "sell out" for not endorsing Sanders." http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/06/elizabeth-warrens-facebook-fans-clinton-endorsement-noooooooooooo"After news broke Thursday afternoon that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the progressive hero from Massachusetts, would endorse Hillary Clinton on MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show on Thursday night, Bernie Sanders' fans took to Facebook to voice their frustration." I don't think it's really relevant. This sort of smoke and mirrors approach to the election in hindsight only serves to detract attention away from the actual flaws with Hillary's pick in lieu of examining possible flaws with hypothetical picks. Especially because it's basically a refrain among non-Clinton liberals that Kaine was rewarded with the VP pick for giving DWS the DNC chair position off of her losing 2008 campaign - ie, they literally don't believe that Clinton ever actually considered a different choice, and that her choice was exactly tainted with the whiff of quid pro quo corruption that she had practically bathed in for years and was never able to wash clean of, and to most appearances, never even even tried. I've been told there's wikileaks emails that prove (or at least heavily imply) this by numerous people. I'm not going out of my way to find those emails, though, and it's the kind of claim that is far, far easier to have someone believe than it is to have someone disprove. Call it fake news if you will.
Kaine was not put into play until after Hillary had a publicized "private" meetings with Warren as well as a planned speaking tour with Warren. Kaine was front runner until Bernie got a lot of steam going, which makes sense why Hillary's team would try to pivot to Warren until the backlash happened.
I personally don't disagree that Kaine was shit show choice. Let me quote my thoughts on Kaine back before the general.
On November 01 2016 06:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2016 06:01 Lazare1969 wrote:On November 01 2016 05:11 Thieving Magpie wrote:
When I first heard about Bernie Sanders jumping into the primary I was super excited. Told my friends, told some coworkers, shared everyone. And I was ready to jump on the hype train for Bernie the same way I did for Obama in 08.
But then the debates happened. Then the interviews happened. Then I watched him crumble into so much water soaked newspaper that I just could not even come close to defending him.
On the flip side Hillary just become so much more impressive for me with each passing week. Even her supposed scandals are barely even impressive as scandals. She gets blamed for Iraq as if it was her plan to invade it. She gets blamed for emails other people send. She gets blamed for Benghazi when attacked embassies are actually fairly plentiful under most other administrations. Over and over the worse things people throw at her are things other people have done. Pretty much anything Bush, Bill, or Obama was responsible for gets redirected to Hillary. You can't help but feel there's a reason Bernie got the white male vote down, you can't help but feel that all these misogynists are coming out the wood work to project hate at anything and everything Hillary does much like the xenophobes did for Obama.
For the most part, it is clear to me why a predominantly male website like this will have difficulties with Hillary. Why Reddit will have difficulties with Hillary. It doesn't matter how many people vote for her, how many things she changes, or how many people she saves. There's nothing they can do to change the actual problem they have with her--and that's she's a her and not a him. I mean, seriously, one of her employees emailed a risotto recipe and that was considered "scandal" worthy. We have an email of DWS telling her employees not to do shady things, and we consider that a Hillary scandal. There is NOTHING Hillary can do to change the minds of people who wants to believe despite lack of evidence that Hillary did anything right.
GreenHorizons is literally campaigning for an anti-science nut case who believes the internet could cause cancer. Not because he's stupid, not because he's a sheep, and not because he's brainwashed (although I am simply assuming these things), but he is willing to literally go against all sense and logic just because he hates Hillary. He's smarter than that--but he is blinded by hate. And so are a lot of Hillary haters. Bernie did strongly in the primaries because many Democrats wanted a progressive presidential nominee, not because of some patriarchal conspiracy that you seem to be suggesting. Hillary would not be having as much difficulty with parts of the Democratic base if she chose Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders as her running mate. Instead she chose the centrist Tim Kaine. Which is basically a big middle finger to all of those who campaigned for Bernie's progressive platform. I don't think Bernie's popularity was a patriarchal response to Hillary. But I do feel that the (mainly online) hate towards Hillary has been primarily as skewed as it has been because of her sex. When was the last time you've heard a presidential candidate be told they can't be trusted because of what other people did as opposed to what she did? The closest in recent memory was Obama (because his mother had sex with a black man) and possibly George Bush for being the son of George Bush (although that wasn't really that loud until they proposed invading Iraq). But speaking as a Hillary supporter--Kaine has been the dumbest strategic move she's made in an otherwise flawless campaign (strategically, there's definitely been bumps along the way, but strategically she's been very precise). I don't even mind Kaine as a politician, he's someone that gets his hands dirty and isn't afraid to make stands that doesn't make him friends; I even think he would have made a very good VP for someone like Sanders, but having the centrist be put side by side with another centrist just feels amateurish and is a blunder I would have expect Bernie to do, not Hillary. If Bernie won the primaries I have no doubt he would have picked another far left candidate as his VP reenforcing the "he's a communist" narrative the GOP would push (that he won't even fight very much against due to his voter base) and we will be 3/4's into the election with with Bernie spending most of his energy telling the right that he's not actually going to be "that extreme" and telling the GOP supporters what they want instead of actually listening to them. Hillary should have either picked a far left candidate or a far right. A good example of a far left candidate would have bee Warren, and she would have been if the BernieBros did not eat her alive just for saying she supported Hillary. If she went the other way then a more right leaning candidate akin to John Edwards, Al Gore, or Barack Obama (were he white) would have been the more fitting way to show that she cared about more fiscal focused issues. My guess is that she picked Kaine to try to create the "illusion" that she's the liberal one of the two of them--but they're a little too similar for that to really be the perception.
|
On December 22 2016 09:06 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 09:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 08:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 08:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 08:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On December 22 2016 08:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 08:16 Mohdoo wrote:On December 22 2016 06:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 22 2016 06:06 Mohdoo wrote:And you are saying that this anger was in defense of Clinton, rather than disappointed in Warren? I'm saying that if getting a far left candidate gets you backlash, then the only recourse is to grab a moderate candidate to grab from voters who won't backlash. There's a reason I called her appointment of Kaine the worst mistake her campaign made in this election cycle. But when even Elizabeth Warren gets the kind of backlash from Bernie supporters what choice did she have? Fidel Castro? Zombie Lenin? How more left than Warren could Hillary have gone? I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the backlash. Bernie supporters would have cheered for, and often did drooled over a Sanders/Warren ticket. But Bernie supporters were even disappointed in Bernie himself when he finally endorsed Clinton. The issue is Clinton. I was not analyzing the backlash, I was simply informing people of what happened. Hillary began the process of getting a liberal VP, but instead of being united by the prospect the BernieBros attacked the liberal candidate instead. What choice did Hillary have if running the far left candidate would cause hate from the Bernie side of the aisle--so instead she picked the "safe pick" of Kaine. I don't really give a fuck what reasons BernieBros felt was justified for attacking a person they said they liked just because she was aiming to find a middle ground between Hillary and Bernie. Uncaring purists that don't want to listen to reason or arguments is the reason Bernie did not have the support system needed to win a primary. Its the reason why he jumps in and out of loyalty to the democrats to simply fit his needs instead of trying to fit the needs of the people as a whole. His angle is not to install liberal policies, his goal is to simply yell every other year so that people get to praise him for being a rebel, never really wanting to do the work or commit the effort needed to make any lasting change to anything. And even all that is irrelevant to the fact that the only reason Kaine became the biggest mistake of the Hillary campaign is because BernieBros attacked Warren. I don't care what the reason they had for attacking her. It's an interesting world view that arrives at the conclusion that Bernie is the selfish one and the Democratic party is the one really fighting for the people. I'm not the one who believes being divided is a better way to push liberal legislation than being united. That's Bernie. No one is against unity, just matters what we're uniting around. Pushing fracking, cozying up to Wall st, seeking Kissinger's endorsement, deporting desperate children fleeing danger to "send their parents a message", lying, etc... weren't things many on the left wanted to unite around/ignore. Democratic party would have been united as a mutha with Bernie on the top of the ticket. What it boils down to is Hillary, not BernieBros, no matter how much you twist things to try to fit that story. They don't even support bernie himself when he says to go with clinton. They/we were supporting the Bernie that told us not to (listen to him telling us to vote for her). It was on her, and she failed. Twisting? Who was the one trying to contend Obama's second run during 2012? Bernie. Who was not a member of the democratic party until he needed some money to kick start his campaign? Bernie Who was the one who jumped ship when the democratic party lost? Bernie Who was the one who was behind in all metrics but decided to extend the campaign trail instead of unifying the party? Bernie Who is the one who actively tells people he is not a democrat yet expects democrats to support him? Bernie Now you may not like the Democratic Party, and that's fine for you to think that GH. But the Democratic Party works as a party because loyalty allows them to stand stronger together than they do split apart. Bernie has shown zero capability of uniting the party, nada, zilch. Assuming he would perform better against Trump than he did against Clinton is making the same mistake Nader made by assuming that high turnout in his speeches meant high turnout in the polls. You know why the Republicans won 2016? Because no matter how much they hated each other they were willing to swallow their pride and work towards a greater good. Bernie and his followers would rather the world burn than compromise. They don't care about people that need help, they care about feeling moral superiority. Obama in 2007-2008 did more harm to HRC than Bernie ever tried to do. The reason the Bernie supporters didn't turn out is because she never successfully appealed to them - which is a mistake Obama never made. PUMA people were just as resistant as Bernouts, but Obama pandered to and coddled them, holding them in his lap and cooing soft promises of coal jobs into their ears. The closest that Hillary came to appealing to her runner up's supporters was the DNC changing its party platform. That wasn't (or shouldn't have been) a direct action by her, and should not have been taken as one. There's a reason why the worst campaign in the history of the US should be treated with massive derision when people try to defend almost any of its actions by pointing to something other than members of its campaign or the choices it made.
Obama did more than that. He was already driving down to those coal miners and frackers before he even started running. Him and Bill Clinton had the right idea of spending a ridiculous amount of driving time going to town halls and promising sweet sweet jobs to people they knew they couldn't help. He didn't wait to see if pandering to conservatives would help him, it was Plan A.
|
gh ->
the notion that the dem party would be super-united under bernie is laughable.
especially from someone who's only half a democrat. bernie should really decide whether he wants to be in the party or not.
his actions justify the concerns of some that he's not really a Democrat and was just using it for his own advantage.
I echo your statement here, as it seems to apply for us as well:
We clearly inhabit two different planets, as such, I think this conversation has run it's course.
|
On December 22 2016 08:18 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 08:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
warren was rather more impressive before she became a senator. since then she hasnt done much more than yell at wall street people. has she really had a chance to do anything else? I mean republicans have controlled it for a while. Also didn't she just join some foreign relations committee?
Impressive Senators are ones who pass laws on their own.
|
apparently North Carolina is getting ugly
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hb2-stays-north-carolina-lawmakers-decline-repeal-controversial-anti-lgbtq-n698696
North Carolina lawmakers on Wednesday failed to reach a deal to repeal a divisive and costly law restricting protections for transgender people, ending a daylong special session without coming to agreement on anything.
While the North Carolina House adjourned, the state's Senate voted down the motion to repeal the controversial so-called "bathroom bill."
That means no end in sight for a crisis that has already helped oust the sitting governor and triggered a boycott of the state by businesses, performers and sports leagues that has cost North Carolina tens of millions of dollars.
apparently they made a deal with Charlotte then pulled out of it. Charlotte fully repealed their law earlier today.
so limiting the Governor's power and breaking a deal they had already made. this seems like a massive middle finger to the new governor.
|
It's interesting how the logic of "anyone but Hillary is at fault for her loss" apologists goes.
Is it "your party" and the Sandernistas don't get to put their not-Democrat in charge? Fine, but don't expect loyalty from them.
Is it the duty of all good Sandernistas to come to the aid of Hillary Clinton and vote for her? Then they are right to expect that they get their fair share for it. No one owes Hillary a vote, she has to earn them, and if she didn't that's on her.
It's also rather humorous how most defenses of her flawed approach to campaigning pretty much implicitly say, "there simply wasn't any way she could have beaten Donald Trump." Progress starts with admitting fault and paving a way forward from there.
Hell, by these standards, "she lost because she was a woman" identity politics so-called "logic" makes sense in comparison.
|
On December 22 2016 10:08 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:apparently North Carolina is getting ugly Show nested quote +North Carolina lawmakers on Wednesday failed to reach a deal to repeal a divisive and costly law restricting protections for transgender people, ending a daylong special session without coming to agreement on anything.
While the North Carolina House adjourned, the state's Senate voted down the motion to repeal the controversial so-called "bathroom bill."
That means no end in sight for a crisis that has already helped oust the sitting governor and triggered a boycott of the state by businesses, performers and sports leagues that has cost North Carolina tens of millions of dollars.
apparently they made a deal with Charlotte then pulled out of it. Charlotte fully repealed their law earlier today. so limiting the Governor's power and breaking a deal they had already made. this seems like a massive middle finger to the new governor
NC GOP were unprincipled scum starting with their concerted voter suppression efforts, up until the recent steps they undertook to screw over the incoming governor. It should come as a surprise to no one that they decided to go back on their word. I'd just like to see how the republicans on this forum defend this asshattery.
|
On December 22 2016 10:14 LegalLord wrote:
It's interesting how the logic of "anyone but Hillary is at fault for her loss" apologists goes.
Is it "your party" and the Sandernistas don't get to put their not-Democrat in charge? Fine, but don't expect loyalty from them.
Is it the duty of all good Sandernistas to come to the aid of Hillary Clinton and vote for her? Then they are right to expect that they get their fair share for it. No one owes Hillary a vote, she has to earn them, and if she didn't that's on her.
It's also rather humorous how most defenses of her flawed approach to campaigning pretty much implicitly say, "there simply wasn't any way she could have beaten Donald Trump." Progress starts with admitting fault and paving a way forward from there.
Hell, by these standards, "she lost because she was a woman" identity politics so-called "logic" makes sense in comparison.
I wouldn't really moralise this heavily, when two parties with differing interests come together which both have more in common with each other than with a third party they ought to cooperate. If one party is smaller than the other they'll usually have to make more concessions. Sanders supporters apparently did not turn out for Hillary, so now they have to live with Trump just like everyone else, which a genuine Sanders supporter could never want.
This isn't about anybody's favourite sports team, it's about getting policies that you want turned into law. The gloating against Hillary from the left just shows that some Sanders supporters genuinely did not care about politics and turned this into a cage fight.
|
This makes me depressed also. I assume these stats are probably going to get worse in the next couple of years.
also I'd like to say that the "It's a mental disorder" people have serious misunderstandings of multiple multiple things. (don't feel like going into a rant here about it)
The 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, which marks the largest-ever survey of trans adults in the U.S., shows elevated rates of economic instability and mental health issues within the trans community.
The survey was released on Thursday and covered 27,715 people from all 50 states and U.S. territories. It showed trans people “really struggling to get a foothold into some of the most basic parts of society,” said Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, which conducted the survey.
Respondents — which included people across the gender spectrum, including trans, non-binary, gender fluid, two-spirit and agender — reported sharp differences in mental health from the general population. Fully 40 percent of respondents said they had attempted suicide in their lifetime — nine times the general population’s 4.6 percent rate. And 39 percent of respondents reported “serious psychological distress” in the month before submitting to the survey, about six times that of the general population.
Economic instability represented a major challenge for respondents. Nearly one-third of respondents lived in poverty, and 15 percent were unemployed, as opposed to 5 percent of the U.S. population. Trans people of color and those with disabilities reported compounding forms of discrimination and economic hardship, with poverty rates much higher for trans people who are Latino (43 percent), American Indian (41 percent), multiracial (40 percent) and black (38 percent).
Trans people with disabilities also reported more economic instability, with 24 percent unemployed and 45 percent living in poverty. Four out of 10 respondents said they had been mistreated by health care providers, and 54 percent of trans people with disabilities said they had attempted suicide.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/largest-ever-survey-trans-adults/
|
On December 22 2016 10:14 Piledriver wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 10:08 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:apparently North Carolina is getting ugly North Carolina lawmakers on Wednesday failed to reach a deal to repeal a divisive and costly law restricting protections for transgender people, ending a daylong special session without coming to agreement on anything.
While the North Carolina House adjourned, the state's Senate voted down the motion to repeal the controversial so-called "bathroom bill."
That means no end in sight for a crisis that has already helped oust the sitting governor and triggered a boycott of the state by businesses, performers and sports leagues that has cost North Carolina tens of millions of dollars.
apparently they made a deal with Charlotte then pulled out of it. Charlotte fully repealed their law earlier today. so limiting the Governor's power and breaking a deal they had already made. this seems like a massive middle finger to the new governor NC GOP were unprincipled scum starting with their concerted voter suppression efforts, up until the recent steps they undertook to screw over the incoming governor. It should come as a surprise to no one that they decided to go back on their word. I'd just like to see how the republicans on this forum defend this asshattery.
We'll see if they actually lose anything in the state over it though. Dan Forrest had a a lot more to do with HB2 than pat, and he got reelected by a pretty big margin. He did have some awesome campaign signs.
|
On December 22 2016 10:18 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 10:14 LegalLord wrote:
It's interesting how the logic of "anyone but Hillary is at fault for her loss" apologists goes.
Is it "your party" and the Sandernistas don't get to put their not-Democrat in charge? Fine, but don't expect loyalty from them.
Is it the duty of all good Sandernistas to come to the aid of Hillary Clinton and vote for her? Then they are right to expect that they get their fair share for it. No one owes Hillary a vote, she has to earn them, and if she didn't that's on her.
It's also rather humorous how most defenses of her flawed approach to campaigning pretty much implicitly say, "there simply wasn't any way she could have beaten Donald Trump." Progress starts with admitting fault and paving a way forward from there.
Hell, by these standards, "she lost because she was a woman" identity politics so-called "logic" makes sense in comparison. I wouldn't really moralise this heavily, when two parties with differing interests come together which both have more in common with each other than with a third party they ought to cooperate. If one party is smaller than the other they'll usually have to make more concessions. Sanders supporters apparently did not turn out for Hillary, so now they have to live with Trump just like everyone else, which a genuine Sanders supporter could never want. This isn't about anybody's favourite sports team, it's about getting policies that you want turned into law. The gloating against Hillary from the left just shows that some Sanders supporters genuinely did not care about politics and turned this into a cage fight.
If Sanders lost outright with no obvious DNC collusion (and if you want to play the denial game, we could use "the perception of collusion" instead), and she made a genuine effort to win over the Sanders base, it would be fine to take the "you can't get everything you want, you have to compromise" stance. As it stands, the Sanders crowd perceived betrayal and let said sentiment be felt in the ballot box.
Trump is worth a severe "fuck you" to Clinton and the Democrats for Sanders diehards such as GH, it seems, so I guess they got some of what they wanted. The shared psychosis from Democrats in denial for the foreseeable future will be interesting to observe.
|
On December 22 2016 10:14 LegalLord wrote:
It's interesting how the logic of "anyone but Hillary is at fault for her loss" apologists goes.
Is it "your party" and the Sandernistas don't get to put their not-Democrat in charge? Fine, but don't expect loyalty from them.
Is it the duty of all good Sandernistas to come to the aid of Hillary Clinton and vote for her? Then they are right to expect that they get their fair share for it. No one owes Hillary a vote, she has to earn them, and if she didn't that's on her.
It's also rather humorous how most defenses of her flawed approach to campaigning pretty much implicitly say, "there simply wasn't any way she could have beaten Donald Trump." Progress starts with admitting fault and paving a way forward from there.
Hell, by these standards, "she lost because she was a woman" identity politics so-called "logic" makes sense in comparison.
I'm not sure who you're classifying as an "apologist", not that the term apologist even seems right in this context.
I'm not sure if you're talking about people in this thread, or just the general people out there that occur in the world sometimes.
it also feels a bit strawmanny; probably cuz it's hard to tell who it's applying to, and it would be strawman if applied to some people and apt if applied to others.
at any rate it's certainly hatin' (as I use the term, which is a bit different from the proper use of hatin' if I understand it correctly)
edit: in response to your more recent post:
just cuz they perceived betrayal doesn't mean jack to me. their perceptions suck, most people's perceptions aren't that good.
I suspect it's a modest/small but vocal portion of the sanders supporters. who are crazy ideologues. bernie may talk the crazy revolution game, but he can at least recognize the reality and limits of it and know when to compromise, some of his followers don't.
the collusion is overblown, and not entirely unjustified since bernie clearly isn't loyal to the democratic party or causes. I'd be inclined to add a rule that you have to have been a party member for awhile (maybe 6 years) to get the presidential nomination; or at least seriously consider such.
And clinton did offer concession to the Bernie camp, as bernie himself stated.
|
On December 22 2016 10:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 10:18 Nyxisto wrote:On December 22 2016 10:14 LegalLord wrote:
It's interesting how the logic of "anyone but Hillary is at fault for her loss" apologists goes.
Is it "your party" and the Sandernistas don't get to put their not-Democrat in charge? Fine, but don't expect loyalty from them.
Is it the duty of all good Sandernistas to come to the aid of Hillary Clinton and vote for her? Then they are right to expect that they get their fair share for it. No one owes Hillary a vote, she has to earn them, and if she didn't that's on her.
It's also rather humorous how most defenses of her flawed approach to campaigning pretty much implicitly say, "there simply wasn't any way she could have beaten Donald Trump." Progress starts with admitting fault and paving a way forward from there.
Hell, by these standards, "she lost because she was a woman" identity politics so-called "logic" makes sense in comparison. I wouldn't really moralise this heavily, when two parties with differing interests come together which both have more in common with each other than with a third party they ought to cooperate. If one party is smaller than the other they'll usually have to make more concessions. Sanders supporters apparently did not turn out for Hillary, so now they have to live with Trump just like everyone else, which a genuine Sanders supporter could never want. This isn't about anybody's favourite sports team, it's about getting policies that you want turned into law. The gloating against Hillary from the left just shows that some Sanders supporters genuinely did not care about politics and turned this into a cage fight. If Sanders lost outright with no obvious DNC collusion (and if you want to play the denial game, we could use "the perception of collusion" instead), and she made a genuine effort to win over the Sanders base, it would be fine to take the "you can't get everything you want, you have to compromise" stance. As it stands, the Sanders crowd perceived betrayal and let said sentiment be felt in the ballot box. Trump is worth a severe "fuck you" to Clinton and the Democrats for Sanders diehards such as GH, it seems, so I guess they got some of what they wanted. The shared psychosis from Democrats in denial for the foreseeable future will be interesting to observe.
People who allow suffering to happen to the common man so they can gloat to the unaffected upper crust are not liberals, they are not progressives, and they are barely even republican.
|
On December 22 2016 10:06 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2016 08:18 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On December 22 2016 08:04 ticklishmusic wrote:
warren was rather more impressive before she became a senator. since then she hasnt done much more than yell at wall street people. has she really had a chance to do anything else? I mean republicans have controlled it for a while. Also didn't she just join some foreign relations committee? Impressive Senators are ones who pass laws on their own.
Can't pass laws if only one person votes for it.
|
I'd just like to highlight that we're having this conversation about how social democrats and liberals should behave to each other because someone thinks that Clinton was cornered into picking Kaine by leftists. The logic presented in this claim is "Look, some social democrats hate it when you create place for social democrats in your administration (This presentation isn't coherent with the facts, as Mohdoo and Nevuk have shown) - I guess I'm forced to choose a liberal instead" (This conclusion wouldn't even be coherent with the argument if the facts were coherent with it in the first place). This is a fiction, and a fairly unbelievable one at that. We cannot go from that fiction to discussing how we should unite as a party.
Magpie is basically putting the blame on leftists for everything bad that happened to democrats (ever?) and then wondering why there's no unity between us. Unity comes with a honest partnership. If the partnership is going to be that I help you get what you want and I take the blame when shit goes wrong, that's not called unity, that's called having a boss. Given that we shouldn't be allies logically and politically, there's no reason why any leftist should accept this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
