|
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 April 08 2017 02:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 02:09 Superbanana wrote:On April 07 2017 23:52 biology]major wrote:On April 07 2017 23:33 Mohdoo wrote:On April 07 2017 23:31 LegalLord wrote:On April 07 2017 23:29 KwarK wrote:On April 07 2017 23:27 LegalLord wrote:
It truly baffles me, is it possible to be quite so tone-deaf?
We didn't want you for president. We still don't want you for president. Stop making public appearances and go do something else. Have you forgotten that she won the popular vote? Who is this "we" who didn't want her to be President? It's certainly not the American public, the American public spoke with their votes, and they supported her. All that proves is that to the American public as a whole, she is marginally more favorable than an utterly unqualified orange clown. Is that the standard you want to play by? You said no one wanted her. She won the popular vote. It is a valid critique of what you said. If your only two options for lunch were dog poop or some type of really average, unexciting, uncharismatic vegetable that was surrounded in conspiracy but everyone was telling you it's good for you, that doesn't equate to support or a ringing endorsement. Stop with the silly allegories. After the clarification that she is supported by some and not actually popular, Mohdoo's point obviously stands. Some people supported her. Its obvious. Stop with the strawman. She had crowd rallies. How can you be so fucking stubborn. I came here hoping for some sober views on the bombings. I'm disappointed. Sober views are not what this thread produces. Politics by nature are not the realm of sober reflection.
Nobody is claiming she had no support. She obviously had some, but Trump did a far better job at energizing the left than she did. Just because she won the popular vote doesn't mean shit, given how much the left loathes Trump, people were motivated to keep him out of the whitehouse rather than enthusiastically place HRC in it.
|
On April 08 2017 02:18 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 02:13 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 02:09 Superbanana wrote:On April 07 2017 23:52 biology]major wrote:On April 07 2017 23:33 Mohdoo wrote:On April 07 2017 23:31 LegalLord wrote:On April 07 2017 23:29 KwarK wrote:On April 07 2017 23:27 LegalLord wrote:
It truly baffles me, is it possible to be quite so tone-deaf?
We didn't want you for president. We still don't want you for president. Stop making public appearances and go do something else. Have you forgotten that she won the popular vote? Who is this "we" who didn't want her to be President? It's certainly not the American public, the American public spoke with their votes, and they supported her. All that proves is that to the American public as a whole, she is marginally more favorable than an utterly unqualified orange clown. Is that the standard you want to play by? You said no one wanted her. She won the popular vote. It is a valid critique of what you said. If your only two options for lunch were dog poop or some type of really average, unexciting, uncharismatic vegetable that was surrounded in conspiracy but everyone was telling you it's good for you, that doesn't equate to support or a ringing endorsement. Stop with the silly allegories. After the clarification that she is supported by some and not actually popular, Mohdoo's point obviously stands. Some people supported her. Its obvious. Stop with the strawman. She had crowd rallies. How can you be so fucking stubborn. I came here hoping for some sober views on the bombings. I'm disappointed. Sober views are not what this thread produces. Politics by nature are not the realm of sober reflection. Nobody is claiming she had no support. She obviously had some, but Trump did a far better job at energizing the left than she did. I'm just saying that just because she won the popular vote doesn't mean shit, given how much the left loathes Trump and people were motivated to keep him out of the whitehouse rather than enthusiastically place HRC in it.
The left didn't vote for Trump. The center did and not by much. He won with a minority vote and one of the closest margins in electoral history(this excludes any elections decided by the House). There will be books written about why Trump won and it won't be a single factor.
And it does matter. The majority of the people in this country don't believe what Trump or the Republican's believe. The sad truth is that their ideas are shit, but they are just better at winning elections than the Democrats. And have been since the 90s. If the Democrats get their head out of their ass, Trump and the Republicans are in deep shit. And they know it.
|
On April 08 2017 02:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 02:18 biology]major wrote:On April 08 2017 02:13 Plansix wrote:On April 08 2017 02:09 Superbanana wrote:On April 07 2017 23:52 biology]major wrote:On April 07 2017 23:33 Mohdoo wrote:On April 07 2017 23:31 LegalLord wrote:On April 07 2017 23:29 KwarK wrote:On April 07 2017 23:27 LegalLord wrote:
It truly baffles me, is it possible to be quite so tone-deaf?
We didn't want you for president. We still don't want you for president. Stop making public appearances and go do something else. Have you forgotten that she won the popular vote? Who is this "we" who didn't want her to be President? It's certainly not the American public, the American public spoke with their votes, and they supported her. All that proves is that to the American public as a whole, she is marginally more favorable than an utterly unqualified orange clown. Is that the standard you want to play by? You said no one wanted her. She won the popular vote. It is a valid critique of what you said. If your only two options for lunch were dog poop or some type of really average, unexciting, uncharismatic vegetable that was surrounded in conspiracy but everyone was telling you it's good for you, that doesn't equate to support or a ringing endorsement. Stop with the silly allegories. After the clarification that she is supported by some and not actually popular, Mohdoo's point obviously stands. Some people supported her. Its obvious. Stop with the strawman. She had crowd rallies. How can you be so fucking stubborn. I came here hoping for some sober views on the bombings. I'm disappointed. Sober views are not what this thread produces. Politics by nature are not the realm of sober reflection. Nobody is claiming she had no support. She obviously had some, but Trump did a far better job at energizing the left than she did. I'm just saying that just because she won the popular vote doesn't mean shit, given how much the left loathes Trump and people were motivated to keep him out of the whitehouse rather than enthusiastically place HRC in it. The left didn't vote for Trump. The center did and not by much. He won with a minority vote and one of the closest margins in electoral history(this excludes any elections decided by the House). There will be books written about why Trump won and it won't be a single factor. And it does matter. The majority of the people in this country don't believe what Trump or the Republican's believe. The sad truth is that their ideas are shit, but they are just better at winning elections than the Democrats. And have been since the 90s. If the Democrats get their head out of their ass, Trump and the Republicans are in deep shit. And they know it.
I think he is saying that Trump energized the left to vote for Hillary, and I think that's true. I despise Hillary, but voted for her anyway because Trump. Without him on the other side, she's not motivating very many people to come out and vote for her.
I disagree in part with your second paragraph. While the Democratic party has many faults, I think most of the blame for this election lies with the people who, when Trump was on the ballot, still didn't come out to fucking vote. It still blows my mind that turnout was so poor when this was a potential outcome. The orange menace is the fault of no one but the American people, as a collective, who still can't bring themselves to give a shit when the world may hang in the balance.
|
Which doesn't look like it's happening with DWS popping her head again, Pelosi and Schumer still towing the Corporate line.
Clinton could easily be in the White House if she had picked Sanders as VP, but she couldn't do that as he was more popular than her and worse drew larger crowds. Instead picked the "Liberal" Tim Kaine who is so liberal he is pro TPP and of course voted Yes on every. single. one. of Trump's nominees.
|
The idea here is to make sure that Trump's whole term energizes Democrats enough that they can both reform their platform and swing control back during the next two election cycles. Whether or not that actually happens is anyone's guess at this point.
Stealth, there's no real way to know whether DWS, Pelosi, or Hillary are going to prevail in their fight to remain at the helm, though your pessimism is well rooted in reality lol.
|
The turn out is poor because elections in the US suck. We allow unlimited money to be poured into TV ad by third parties. We have debates that vaguely resemble joint press conferences with some highlights. Voting isn't a holiday and no one get to leave work early. We allow our local governments to pick where voting happens and to to defund voting places if they are in unfavorable areas for the party of power.
And the shit goes on for like a year. The election season sometimes outlasts professional sports leagues. And they make as much money for news networks, who now love all the unlimited money flowing into them. In some misguided effort to "protect free speech" and not regulate the primaries and general election, we have turned our democracy a capitalist feeding frenzy that is the worst.
Also our parties suck a bunch. But America still lives on the idea that only those willing work through the resistance should be allowed in the voting booth.
Edit: I still don't know why the house loves Pelosi so much. That place has had crazy turn over and they all still vote for her. I thought putting her in the speakers 2008 was a mistake and I don't know why they still support her. But the house is its own thing.
|
Yes well, after identifying the forces that are channeling the electoral process into the distorted shitscape that it is, it's useful to focus on opposing those in one way or the other. Lining up collective misfortune with the identity of the ruling party seems like a ripe place to start, particularly given that malcontent is rising among those who take pride in having put Trump in office.
|
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once.
|
|
|
On April 08 2017 02:39 Plansix wrote:
The turn out is poor because elections in the US suck. We allow unlimited money to be poured into TV ad by third parties. We have debates that vaguely resemble joint press conferences with some highlights. Voting isn't a holiday and no one get to leave work early. We allow our local governments to pick where voting happens and to to defund voting places if they are in unfavorable areas for the party of power.
And the shit goes on for like a year. The election season sometimes outlasts professional sports leagues. And they make as much money for news networks, who now love all the unlimited money flowing into them. In some misguided effort to "protect free speech" and not regulate the primaries and general election, we have turned our democracy a capitalist feeding frenzy that is the worst.
Also our parties suck a bunch. But America still lives on the idea that only those willing work through the resistance should be allowed in the voting booth.
Edit: I still don't know why the house loves Pelosi so much. That place has had crazy turn over and they all still vote for her. I thought putting her in the speakers 2008 was a mistake and I don't know why they still support her. But the house is its own thing.
This is all 100 percent true, and yet people should still shut the hell up and get out to the ballot box.
|
On April 08 2017 02:54 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 02:39 Plansix wrote:
The turn out is poor because elections in the US suck. We allow unlimited money to be poured into TV ad by third parties. We have debates that vaguely resemble joint press conferences with some highlights. Voting isn't a holiday and no one get to leave work early. We allow our local governments to pick where voting happens and to to defund voting places if they are in unfavorable areas for the party of power.
And the shit goes on for like a year. The election season sometimes outlasts professional sports leagues. And they make as much money for news networks, who now love all the unlimited money flowing into them. In some misguided effort to "protect free speech" and not regulate the primaries and general election, we have turned our democracy a capitalist feeding frenzy that is the worst.
Also our parties suck a bunch. But America still lives on the idea that only those willing work through the resistance should be allowed in the voting booth.
Edit: I still don't know why the house loves Pelosi so much. That place has had crazy turn over and they all still vote for her. I thought putting her in the speakers 2008 was a mistake and I don't know why they still support her. But the house is its own thing. This is all 100 percent true, and yet people should still shut the hell up and get out to the ballot box.
It has to be worth their time. They have to feel like their vote will have an impact. In this winner take all, politics as pro-wrestling hellscape, that is a tough sell.
|
On April 07 2017 23:39 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 23:35 opisska wrote:
Are there any post-elections polls about how favourably people see her now where she isn't the only non-orangutan option anymore, but just one of many politicians? I can't find anything, Google is still swamped by election-related stuff and I don't really know reliable polling agencies in the US to go directly to them. I can't find anything. polls cost money to run, so they tend not to be done if there's not much demand. hillary hasn't been in the news or relevant enough for there to be interest in what her numbers are now.
Did you guys miss the Suffolk University poll (I don't think so because I remember folks dismissing it).
It had Hillary 55% unfavorable 35% favorable 9% No Opinion/Never heard of
She was 20 points upside-down in March.
She's liked by a small part of the country regardless of whether she got a majority.
Hillary is less favorable than Donald Trump, Mike Pence and even the damn Republican party. The popular vote line is a red herring
EDIT: Let's be clear for those who thought Hillary was the candidate to support if you didn't want family going to war. Hillary wants MORE escalation in Syria. And we keep seeing the "If Trump doesn't escalate the conflict further than it's just a political stunt" from her supporters (after they had their hot take of "Hillary wouldn't have done this")
On April 08 2017 03:30 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 07 2017 23:39 zlefin wrote:On April 07 2017 23:35 opisska wrote:
Are there any post-elections polls about how favourably people see her now where she isn't the only non-orangutan option anymore, but just one of many politicians? I can't find anything, Google is still swamped by election-related stuff and I don't really know reliable polling agencies in the US to go directly to them. I can't find anything. polls cost money to run, so they tend not to be done if there's not much demand. hillary hasn't been in the news or relevant enough for there to be interest in what her numbers are now. Did you guys miss the Suffolk University poll (I don't think so because I remember folks dismissing it). It had Hillary 55% unfavorable 35% favorable 9% No Opinion/Never heard of She was 20 points upside-down in March. She's liked by a small part of the country regardless of whether she got a majority. Hillary is less favorable than Donald Trump, Mike Pence and even the damn Republican party. The popular vote line is a red herring I did miss it cuz it didn't turn up in my googling, and it's still generally the case that few polls ask about her current numbers. it's funny how the rationalization changed the numbers for more supporting trump; ah rationalization. not otherwise interested in engaging with you given your hatedom.
Lol I have a similar feeling about your vapid deconstructions.
|
On April 08 2017 03:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2017 23:39 zlefin wrote:On April 07 2017 23:35 opisska wrote:
Are there any post-elections polls about how favourably people see her now where she isn't the only non-orangutan option anymore, but just one of many politicians? I can't find anything, Google is still swamped by election-related stuff and I don't really know reliable polling agencies in the US to go directly to them. I can't find anything. polls cost money to run, so they tend not to be done if there's not much demand. hillary hasn't been in the news or relevant enough for there to be interest in what her numbers are now. Did you guys miss the Suffolk University poll (I don't think so because I remember folks dismissing it). It had Hillary 55% unfavorable 35% favorable 9% No Opinion/Never heard of She was 20 points upside-down in March. She's liked by a small part of the country regardless of whether she got a majority. Hillary is less favorable than Donald Trump, Mike Pence and even the damn Republican party. The popular vote line is a red herring
I did miss it cuz it didn't turn up in my googling, and it's still generally the case that few polls ask about her current numbers.
it's funny how the rationalization changed the numbers for more supporting trump; ah rationalization.
not otherwise interested in engaging with you given your hatedom.
PS reading through the other stuff in that poll; having a laugh whenever I see popular numbers favoring things that are clearly stupid and unsound. pesky idiots everywhere.
|
On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once.
I dunno if reducing to a two-plank platform is wise, but I would say that "keep it simple, stupid" and having a short manifesto (like New Labour in the UK) would do them wonders.
|
On April 08 2017 03:39 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. I dunno if reducing to a two-plank platform is wise, but I would say that "keep it simple, stupid" and having a short manifesto (like New Labour in the UK) would do them wonders.
This is what democrats have needed for a long time. Need big, emotionally charged, grand promises that hit a certain spot and are perhaps not entirely genuine or realistic.
|
On April 08 2017 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 03:39 LightSpectra wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. I dunno if reducing to a two-plank platform is wise, but I would say that "keep it simple, stupid" and having a short manifesto (like New Labour in the UK) would do them wonders. This is what democrats have needed for a long time. Need big, emotionally charged, grand promises that hit a certain spot and are perhaps not entirely genuine or realistic.
I vaguely remember Democrats shitting all over that candidate.
|
On April 08 2017 03:39 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. I dunno if reducing to a two-plank platform is wise, but I would say that "keep it simple, stupid" and having a short manifesto (like New Labour in the UK) would do them wonders.
Le t the national platform be two planks and let the politicians focus on regional politics. Get away from the one size fits all platform. Trying to convince middle America to care about diversity isn’t a winning plan. Police violence isn’t a subject that people in Utah care about. But everyone wants less money in elections and jobs.
|
Browsing the mediaverse over the last few hours it looks pretty clear that Trump's general supporter base (including foreign populists) quite consistently are displeased with him for the Syria strike. Little surprise.
|
On April 08 2017 03:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:On April 08 2017 03:39 LightSpectra wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. I dunno if reducing to a two-plank platform is wise, but I would say that "keep it simple, stupid" and having a short manifesto (like New Labour in the UK) would do them wonders. This is what democrats have needed for a long time. Need big, emotionally charged, grand promises that hit a certain spot and are perhaps not entirely genuine or realistic. I vaguely remember Democrats shitting all over that candidate.
Donald Trump's promises were moreso in the "delusional" range than "grandiose".
The Democrats' manifesto could look something like this (don't get an apoplectic fit over it, it's just a sample I'm typing spur-of-the-moment):
1. Establishment of a new Public Works Administration to give temporary employment to all people in search of a job.
2. Immediate Congressional debate and vote on the "Medicare for All" Act.
3. A ban on any elected, federal politician from taking donations from corporations worth more than $1m.
4. Complete federal legalization of marijuana for both recreational and medicinal purposes. The taxes earned from marijuana will go to ensuring that all military and police veterans can receive affordable housing and pensions.
5. A student loans forgiveness/refinancing program.
Optimistic, but not to the point of unrealism; something to rope in both the old and the young, centrists and progressives.
On April 08 2017 04:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 03:39 LightSpectra wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. I dunno if reducing to a two-plank platform is wise, but I would say that "keep it simple, stupid" and having a short manifesto (like New Labour in the UK) would do them wonders. Le t the national platform be two planks and let the politicians focus on regional politics. Get away from the one size fits all platform. Trying to convince middle America to care about diversity isn’t a winning plan. Police violence isn’t a subject that people in Utah care about. But everyone wants less money in elections and jobs.
No, I agree that "identity politics" has been a cancer to the Democrats. But the key voting base for them is the unemployed bloc that went to Trump out of desperation. Those people don't give a shit about electoral reform.
|
On April 08 2017 03:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2017 03:39 LightSpectra wrote:On April 08 2017 02:46 Plansix wrote:
The Democrats should run on jobs and election reform. Make a plan to get people jobs and make elections not shit in the future. Just stick to a simple focus, rather than be the party that is fighting everything at once. I dunno if reducing to a two-plank platform is wise, but I would say that "keep it simple, stupid" and having a short manifesto (like New Labour in the UK) would do them wonders. This is what democrats have needed for a long time. Need big, emotionally charged, grand promises that hit a certain spot and are perhaps not entirely genuine or realistic.
Are you trying to say that pragmatism is a problem for Democrats?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
