|
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 May 03 2017 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:36 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 00:47 Plansix wrote:
It should be noted that removing the filibuster is seen as a net loss for Republican/conservatives over the long term. Removing entitlements is harder than putting them in place and the Democrats could create more social programs and taxes without Republican buy-in if the filibuster is removed.
Also the Senate is pretty unified in keeping the rule in place. They do not want to become the house where only a simple majority is required to pass a law. The prevailing view is that it is a net loss for the courtry.
Which is why once Democrats get back in power they will make sure to bring back the filibuster for Republicans to use against them.Also love how Hillary is still talking about how her loss wasn't her fault. I never said the Democrats agreed that it was for the good of the country. Just that political analysis said it would be better for democrats long term. I agree with my senators assessment removing the filibuster is bad for the Supreme Court and for the country. I don’t agree with his assessment that it should be restored unless we see significant changes GOP leadership in the Senate. I'm just saying Democrats are so good at losing they even want to use their power to bring back rules to make it easier for them to lose. The only way politics gets better is the members of congress undo all the terrible rules put in place by the GOP in the last 20 years. From the Haster rule in the House to this rule in the Senate. There does need to be a rethinking of how the chambers should conduct themselves. But it needs to be both parties. You are not wrong that the Democrats want to hand over weapons to the GOP for no real reason. The democrats are desperate to get back to the era of bipartisanship, but they need win elections first and stay in office first. I find it hard to believe that we are so smart that we see how obviously stupid bringing back the filibuster for Republicans to use, then losing every time Republicans are in power is, but these people who do this for a living don't see it. They see it and think losing is in their interest. The big lie is that they are fighting with each other representing the two major factions of "the people". The fight is a lie to cover for the fact that they both represent the wealthy, with sometimes opposing factions within the wealthy. Why would you think that message is for everyone? Or the official line of the DNC? I understand the fear of the DNC doing stupid things. Their record shows they love to shoot themselves in the leg. There is a chance that he is one Senator voicing his opinion on the subject and what he would like to see. If congress is ever going to be made functional again, we have to talk about these rules. And changing them back means empowering the potential minority Republicans. I would argue that biggest mistake the Democrats made in 2008 was not removing all the rules the Republicans put into place during the hold on the House. It took the Republicans over 10 years to get the House to be the little dictatorship for the Speaker that it is. But then I remember who they put up there as speaker of the house and totally understood why. Well there's no opposing voice in the Democratic party on the issue so there's that, plus the whole creatures of habit thing. Maybe he's alone, but still emblematic of how remarkably ineffectual Democrats are. No question that Trump's incompetence has caused Trump more problems than the Democratic party, if they were "resisting" someone even remotely capable they would be getting dragged through the square. Democrats are losing in popularity to literally the least liked president in history who is known by his own voters as a serial liar. I don't think many Democrats really appreciate how god awful terrible they are in the eye's of the country. Meanwhile they'd rather float ol' Joe for 2020 than admit they need to be more like the most popular politician in the country that they spent the last year or so marginalizing and trying desperately to argue that he and his idea's are actually less popular than Hillary/Democrats and their ideas. This isn’t new for Democrats or progressives as a whole. Look at the EU. Or if you need the US example, go back to Nixon. The Democrats have a popular, young, charismatic president in JFK. He dies and the next election they are dumpstered by the trash fire that was Nixon. If you read reports from the time, the Democratic leadership was dumbfounded and couldn’t understand what happened. There is a choice quote out there “I don’t even know a single person who voted for Nixon. I never spoke to anyone who said they would” from someone in the leadership at the time. You are not wrong, but this is part of the political cycle we go through. The “party” or the left needs renewed leadership and a way forward. That process is a fight unto itself. And that fight won’t end even if Bernie is the next presidential candidate in 2020. It won’t end after the election. You will be fighting with centrist-liberals until the heat death of the universe. Just embrace it. I can deal with that, would just be nice for them to realize how wrong they've been and how disconnected they are from the overwhelming majority of Americans both on a personal and political level. Like Hillary should probably shut up or next time she answers a question about losing, suggest that she probably shouldn't have cheated during the primary and supported that cheater being made interim chair of the DNC (replacing the previous chair who resigned in disgrace before immediately being hired by Hillary, who went on to campaign for DWS).
Saying Hillary cheated in the primary is getting very old when there is not a single shred of proof. I'm actually sick and tired of the Bernie bros, more so now than before thr election. I find myself mostly leaning left but I honestly think now I would under almost no circumstance ever vote for a Bernie or anyone like him. I think Bernie would've been almost as bad as trump, and that's saying a lot.
|
On May 03 2017 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:36 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 03:49 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 00:47 Plansix wrote:
It should be noted that removing the filibuster is seen as a net loss for Republican/conservatives over the long term. Removing entitlements is harder than putting them in place and the Democrats could create more social programs and taxes without Republican buy-in if the filibuster is removed.
Also the Senate is pretty unified in keeping the rule in place. They do not want to become the house where only a simple majority is required to pass a law. The prevailing view is that it is a net loss for the courtry.
Which is why once Democrats get back in power they will make sure to bring back the filibuster for Republicans to use against them.Also love how Hillary is still talking about how her loss wasn't her fault. I never said the Democrats agreed that it was for the good of the country. Just that political analysis said it would be better for democrats long term. I agree with my senators assessment removing the filibuster is bad for the Supreme Court and for the country. I don’t agree with his assessment that it should be restored unless we see significant changes GOP leadership in the Senate. I'm just saying Democrats are so good at losing they even want to use their power to bring back rules to make it easier for them to lose. The only way politics gets better is the members of congress undo all the terrible rules put in place by the GOP in the last 20 years. From the Haster rule in the House to this rule in the Senate. There does need to be a rethinking of how the chambers should conduct themselves. But it needs to be both parties. You are not wrong that the Democrats want to hand over weapons to the GOP for no real reason. The democrats are desperate to get back to the era of bipartisanship, but they need win elections first and stay in office first. I find it hard to believe that we are so smart that we see how obviously stupid bringing back the filibuster for Republicans to use, then losing every time Republicans are in power is, but these people who do this for a living don't see it. They see it and think losing is in their interest. The big lie is that they are fighting with each other representing the two major factions of "the people". The fight is a lie to cover for the fact that they both represent the wealthy, with sometimes opposing factions within the wealthy. Why would you think that message is for everyone? Or the official line of the DNC? I understand the fear of the DNC doing stupid things. Their record shows they love to shoot themselves in the leg. There is a chance that he is one Senator voicing his opinion on the subject and what he would like to see. If congress is ever going to be made functional again, we have to talk about these rules. And changing them back means empowering the potential minority Republicans. I would argue that biggest mistake the Democrats made in 2008 was not removing all the rules the Republicans put into place during the hold on the House. It took the Republicans over 10 years to get the House to be the little dictatorship for the Speaker that it is. But then I remember who they put up there as speaker of the house and totally understood why. Well there's no opposing voice in the Democratic party on the issue so there's that, plus the whole creatures of habit thing. Maybe he's alone, but still emblematic of how remarkably ineffectual Democrats are. No question that Trump's incompetence has caused Trump more problems than the Democratic party, if they were "resisting" someone even remotely capable they would be getting dragged through the square. Democrats are losing in popularity to literally the least liked president in history who is known by his own voters as a serial liar. I don't think many Democrats really appreciate how god awful terrible they are in the eye's of the country. Meanwhile they'd rather float ol' Joe for 2020 than admit they need to be more like the most popular politician in the country that they spent the last year or so marginalizing and trying desperately to argue that he and his idea's are actually less popular than Hillary/Democrats and their ideas. This isn’t new for Democrats or progressives as a whole. Look at the EU. Or if you need the US example, go back to Nixon. The Democrats have a popular, young, charismatic president in JFK. He dies and the next election they are dumpstered by the trash fire that was Nixon. If you read reports from the time, the Democratic leadership was dumbfounded and couldn’t understand what happened. There is a choice quote out there “I don’t even know a single person who voted for Nixon. I never spoke to anyone who said they would” from someone in the leadership at the time. You are not wrong, but this is part of the political cycle we go through. The “party” or the left needs renewed leadership and a way forward. That process is a fight unto itself. And that fight won’t end even if Bernie is the next presidential candidate in 2020. It won’t end after the election. You will be fighting with centrist-liberals until the heat death of the universe. Just embrace it. I can deal with that, would just be nice for them to realize how wrong they've been and how disconnected they are from the overwhelming majority of Americans both on a personal and political level. Like Hillary should probably shut up or next time she answers a question about losing, suggest that she probably shouldn't have cheated during the primary and supported that cheater being made interim chair of the DNC (replacing the previous chair who resigned in disgrace before immediately being hired by Hillary, who went on to campaign for DWS).
If you are looking for praise or people to tell you that you were right all along, politics is not the place of salvation. You need to wait years, until the emotion investment and bitterness fade. It took people years to admit they were fooled by Nixon. It is going to be the same here. The only thing you can hope for is to champion something you care about, get it put into place and then sit back and wait for everyone to see you were right. And you will only get one. That is it. One change, program or policy you care about.
|
Can't say I disagree with her.
What came through loud and clear -- despite her assertions that she made a number of mistakes in the course of the campaign -- was that Clinton believes that the election was taken from her. And that she's still mad as hell about it.
"I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off. And the evidence for that intervening event is I think compelling, persuasive and so we overcame a lot in the campaign," Clinton said at one point, citing analysis by 538's Nate Silver suggesting that up until those twin events, she was winning.
She sarcastically noted the "coincidence" that an hour after the story of Trump's lewd comments on an "Access Hollywood" taping broke, WikiLeaks revealed it had more than 50,000 private emails sent by her campaign chairman John Podesta.
www.cnn.com
|
On May 03 2017 05:11 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:36 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:I never said the Democrats agreed that it was for the good of the country. Just that political analysis said it would be better for democrats long term. I agree with my senators assessment removing the filibuster is bad for the Supreme Court and for the country. I don’t agree with his assessment that it should be restored unless we see significant changes GOP leadership in the Senate. I'm just saying Democrats are so good at losing they even want to use their power to bring back rules to make it easier for them to lose. The only way politics gets better is the members of congress undo all the terrible rules put in place by the GOP in the last 20 years. From the Haster rule in the House to this rule in the Senate. There does need to be a rethinking of how the chambers should conduct themselves. But it needs to be both parties. You are not wrong that the Democrats want to hand over weapons to the GOP for no real reason. The democrats are desperate to get back to the era of bipartisanship, but they need win elections first and stay in office first. I find it hard to believe that we are so smart that we see how obviously stupid bringing back the filibuster for Republicans to use, then losing every time Republicans are in power is, but these people who do this for a living don't see it. They see it and think losing is in their interest. The big lie is that they are fighting with each other representing the two major factions of "the people". The fight is a lie to cover for the fact that they both represent the wealthy, with sometimes opposing factions within the wealthy. Why would you think that message is for everyone? Or the official line of the DNC? I understand the fear of the DNC doing stupid things. Their record shows they love to shoot themselves in the leg. There is a chance that he is one Senator voicing his opinion on the subject and what he would like to see. If congress is ever going to be made functional again, we have to talk about these rules. And changing them back means empowering the potential minority Republicans. I would argue that biggest mistake the Democrats made in 2008 was not removing all the rules the Republicans put into place during the hold on the House. It took the Republicans over 10 years to get the House to be the little dictatorship for the Speaker that it is. But then I remember who they put up there as speaker of the house and totally understood why. Well there's no opposing voice in the Democratic party on the issue so there's that, plus the whole creatures of habit thing. Maybe he's alone, but still emblematic of how remarkably ineffectual Democrats are. No question that Trump's incompetence has caused Trump more problems than the Democratic party, if they were "resisting" someone even remotely capable they would be getting dragged through the square. Democrats are losing in popularity to literally the least liked president in history who is known by his own voters as a serial liar. I don't think many Democrats really appreciate how god awful terrible they are in the eye's of the country. Meanwhile they'd rather float ol' Joe for 2020 than admit they need to be more like the most popular politician in the country that they spent the last year or so marginalizing and trying desperately to argue that he and his idea's are actually less popular than Hillary/Democrats and their ideas. This isn’t new for Democrats or progressives as a whole. Look at the EU. Or if you need the US example, go back to Nixon. The Democrats have a popular, young, charismatic president in JFK. He dies and the next election they are dumpstered by the trash fire that was Nixon. If you read reports from the time, the Democratic leadership was dumbfounded and couldn’t understand what happened. There is a choice quote out there “I don’t even know a single person who voted for Nixon. I never spoke to anyone who said they would” from someone in the leadership at the time. You are not wrong, but this is part of the political cycle we go through. The “party” or the left needs renewed leadership and a way forward. That process is a fight unto itself. And that fight won’t end even if Bernie is the next presidential candidate in 2020. It won’t end after the election. You will be fighting with centrist-liberals until the heat death of the universe. Just embrace it. I can deal with that, would just be nice for them to realize how wrong they've been and how disconnected they are from the overwhelming majority of Americans both on a personal and political level. Like Hillary should probably shut up or next time she answers a question about losing, suggest that she probably shouldn't have cheated during the primary and supported that cheater being made interim chair of the DNC (replacing the previous chair who resigned in disgrace before immediately being hired by Hillary, who went on to campaign for DWS). Saying Hillary cheated in the primary is getting very old when there is not a single shred of proof. I'm actually sick and tired of the Bernie bros, more so now than before thr election. I find myself mostly leaning left but I honestly think now I would under almost no circumstance ever vote for a Bernie or anyone like him. I think Bernie would've been almost as bad as trump, and that's saying a lot.
I'm referencing a very specific incident of cheating that no one disputes was both against the rules (cheating) and happened.
But thanks for being an example of exactly what I'm talking about.
|
On May 03 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:11 hunts wrote:On May 03 2017 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:36 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I never said the Democrats agreed that it was for the good of the country. Just that political analysis said it would be better for democrats long term. I agree with my senators assessment removing the filibuster is bad for the Supreme Court and for the country. I don’t agree with his assessment that it should be restored unless we see significant changes GOP leadership in the Senate. I'm just saying Democrats are so good at losing they even want to use their power to bring back rules to make it easier for them to lose. The only way politics gets better is the members of congress undo all the terrible rules put in place by the GOP in the last 20 years. From the Haster rule in the House to this rule in the Senate. There does need to be a rethinking of how the chambers should conduct themselves. But it needs to be both parties. You are not wrong that the Democrats want to hand over weapons to the GOP for no real reason. The democrats are desperate to get back to the era of bipartisanship, but they need win elections first and stay in office first. I find it hard to believe that we are so smart that we see how obviously stupid bringing back the filibuster for Republicans to use, then losing every time Republicans are in power is, but these people who do this for a living don't see it. They see it and think losing is in their interest. The big lie is that they are fighting with each other representing the two major factions of "the people". The fight is a lie to cover for the fact that they both represent the wealthy, with sometimes opposing factions within the wealthy. Why would you think that message is for everyone? Or the official line of the DNC? I understand the fear of the DNC doing stupid things. Their record shows they love to shoot themselves in the leg. There is a chance that he is one Senator voicing his opinion on the subject and what he would like to see. If congress is ever going to be made functional again, we have to talk about these rules. And changing them back means empowering the potential minority Republicans. I would argue that biggest mistake the Democrats made in 2008 was not removing all the rules the Republicans put into place during the hold on the House. It took the Republicans over 10 years to get the House to be the little dictatorship for the Speaker that it is. But then I remember who they put up there as speaker of the house and totally understood why. Well there's no opposing voice in the Democratic party on the issue so there's that, plus the whole creatures of habit thing. Maybe he's alone, but still emblematic of how remarkably ineffectual Democrats are. No question that Trump's incompetence has caused Trump more problems than the Democratic party, if they were "resisting" someone even remotely capable they would be getting dragged through the square. Democrats are losing in popularity to literally the least liked president in history who is known by his own voters as a serial liar. I don't think many Democrats really appreciate how god awful terrible they are in the eye's of the country. Meanwhile they'd rather float ol' Joe for 2020 than admit they need to be more like the most popular politician in the country that they spent the last year or so marginalizing and trying desperately to argue that he and his idea's are actually less popular than Hillary/Democrats and their ideas. This isn’t new for Democrats or progressives as a whole. Look at the EU. Or if you need the US example, go back to Nixon. The Democrats have a popular, young, charismatic president in JFK. He dies and the next election they are dumpstered by the trash fire that was Nixon. If you read reports from the time, the Democratic leadership was dumbfounded and couldn’t understand what happened. There is a choice quote out there “I don’t even know a single person who voted for Nixon. I never spoke to anyone who said they would” from someone in the leadership at the time. You are not wrong, but this is part of the political cycle we go through. The “party” or the left needs renewed leadership and a way forward. That process is a fight unto itself. And that fight won’t end even if Bernie is the next presidential candidate in 2020. It won’t end after the election. You will be fighting with centrist-liberals until the heat death of the universe. Just embrace it. I can deal with that, would just be nice for them to realize how wrong they've been and how disconnected they are from the overwhelming majority of Americans both on a personal and political level. Like Hillary should probably shut up or next time she answers a question about losing, suggest that she probably shouldn't have cheated during the primary and supported that cheater being made interim chair of the DNC (replacing the previous chair who resigned in disgrace before immediately being hired by Hillary, who went on to campaign for DWS). Saying Hillary cheated in the primary is getting very old when there is not a single shred of proof. I'm actually sick and tired of the Bernie bros, more so now than before thr election. I find myself mostly leaning left but I honestly think now I would under almost no circumstance ever vote for a Bernie or anyone like him. I think Bernie would've been almost as bad as trump, and that's saying a lot. I'm referencing a very specific incident of cheating that no one disputes was both against the rules (cheating) and happened. But thanks for being an example of exactly what I'm talking about.
Please show citation of incident as well as proof of everyone agreeing that it happened and was cheating. You're a prime example of the Bernie fans who just claim things with no proof, it's honestly just as bad as what the Trump supporters do.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 03 2017 05:13 Doodsmack wrote:Can't say I disagree with her. Show nested quote +What came through loud and clear -- despite her assertions that she made a number of mistakes in the course of the campaign -- was that Clinton believes that the election was taken from her. And that she's still mad as hell about it.
"I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off. And the evidence for that intervening event is I think compelling, persuasive and so we overcame a lot in the campaign," Clinton said at one point, citing analysis by 538's Nate Silver suggesting that up until those twin events, she was winning.
She sarcastically noted the "coincidence" that an hour after the story of Trump's lewd comments on an "Access Hollywood" taping broke, WikiLeaks revealed it had more than 50,000 private emails sent by her campaign chairman John Podesta. www.cnn.com
You know, it wouldn't be so fun to mock the "Putin-Comey conspiracy" if it weren't the case that there are too many buffoons (including Clinton) who still desperately cling to that narrative to explain her defeat, as if that was the only reason she lost.
User was warned for this post
|
On May 03 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:11 hunts wrote:On May 03 2017 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:36 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:13 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
I never said the Democrats agreed that it was for the good of the country. Just that political analysis said it would be better for democrats long term. I agree with my senators assessment removing the filibuster is bad for the Supreme Court and for the country. I don’t agree with his assessment that it should be restored unless we see significant changes GOP leadership in the Senate. I'm just saying Democrats are so good at losing they even want to use their power to bring back rules to make it easier for them to lose. The only way politics gets better is the members of congress undo all the terrible rules put in place by the GOP in the last 20 years. From the Haster rule in the House to this rule in the Senate. There does need to be a rethinking of how the chambers should conduct themselves. But it needs to be both parties. You are not wrong that the Democrats want to hand over weapons to the GOP for no real reason. The democrats are desperate to get back to the era of bipartisanship, but they need win elections first and stay in office first. I find it hard to believe that we are so smart that we see how obviously stupid bringing back the filibuster for Republicans to use, then losing every time Republicans are in power is, but these people who do this for a living don't see it. They see it and think losing is in their interest. The big lie is that they are fighting with each other representing the two major factions of "the people". The fight is a lie to cover for the fact that they both represent the wealthy, with sometimes opposing factions within the wealthy. Why would you think that message is for everyone? Or the official line of the DNC? I understand the fear of the DNC doing stupid things. Their record shows they love to shoot themselves in the leg. There is a chance that he is one Senator voicing his opinion on the subject and what he would like to see. If congress is ever going to be made functional again, we have to talk about these rules. And changing them back means empowering the potential minority Republicans. I would argue that biggest mistake the Democrats made in 2008 was not removing all the rules the Republicans put into place during the hold on the House. It took the Republicans over 10 years to get the House to be the little dictatorship for the Speaker that it is. But then I remember who they put up there as speaker of the house and totally understood why. Well there's no opposing voice in the Democratic party on the issue so there's that, plus the whole creatures of habit thing. Maybe he's alone, but still emblematic of how remarkably ineffectual Democrats are. No question that Trump's incompetence has caused Trump more problems than the Democratic party, if they were "resisting" someone even remotely capable they would be getting dragged through the square. Democrats are losing in popularity to literally the least liked president in history who is known by his own voters as a serial liar. I don't think many Democrats really appreciate how god awful terrible they are in the eye's of the country. Meanwhile they'd rather float ol' Joe for 2020 than admit they need to be more like the most popular politician in the country that they spent the last year or so marginalizing and trying desperately to argue that he and his idea's are actually less popular than Hillary/Democrats and their ideas. This isn’t new for Democrats or progressives as a whole. Look at the EU. Or if you need the US example, go back to Nixon. The Democrats have a popular, young, charismatic president in JFK. He dies and the next election they are dumpstered by the trash fire that was Nixon. If you read reports from the time, the Democratic leadership was dumbfounded and couldn’t understand what happened. There is a choice quote out there “I don’t even know a single person who voted for Nixon. I never spoke to anyone who said they would” from someone in the leadership at the time. You are not wrong, but this is part of the political cycle we go through. The “party” or the left needs renewed leadership and a way forward. That process is a fight unto itself. And that fight won’t end even if Bernie is the next presidential candidate in 2020. It won’t end after the election. You will be fighting with centrist-liberals until the heat death of the universe. Just embrace it. I can deal with that, would just be nice for them to realize how wrong they've been and how disconnected they are from the overwhelming majority of Americans both on a personal and political level. Like Hillary should probably shut up or next time she answers a question about losing, suggest that she probably shouldn't have cheated during the primary and supported that cheater being made interim chair of the DNC (replacing the previous chair who resigned in disgrace before immediately being hired by Hillary, who went on to campaign for DWS). Saying Hillary cheated in the primary is getting very old when there is not a single shred of proof. I'm actually sick and tired of the Bernie bros, more so now than before thr election. I find myself mostly leaning left but I honestly think now I would under almost no circumstance ever vote for a Bernie or anyone like him. I think Bernie would've been almost as bad as trump, and that's saying a lot. I'm referencing a very specific incident of cheating that no one disputes was both against the rules (cheating) and happened. But thanks for being an example of exactly what I'm talking about.
Y, not sure what incident your talking about
|
On May 03 2017 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 05:11 hunts wrote:On May 03 2017 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:36 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I'm just saying Democrats are so good at losing they even want to use their power to bring back rules to make it easier for them to lose. The only way politics gets better is the members of congress undo all the terrible rules put in place by the GOP in the last 20 years. From the Haster rule in the House to this rule in the Senate. There does need to be a rethinking of how the chambers should conduct themselves. But it needs to be both parties. You are not wrong that the Democrats want to hand over weapons to the GOP for no real reason. The democrats are desperate to get back to the era of bipartisanship, but they need win elections first and stay in office first. I find it hard to believe that we are so smart that we see how obviously stupid bringing back the filibuster for Republicans to use, then losing every time Republicans are in power is, but these people who do this for a living don't see it. They see it and think losing is in their interest. The big lie is that they are fighting with each other representing the two major factions of "the people". The fight is a lie to cover for the fact that they both represent the wealthy, with sometimes opposing factions within the wealthy. Why would you think that message is for everyone? Or the official line of the DNC? I understand the fear of the DNC doing stupid things. Their record shows they love to shoot themselves in the leg. There is a chance that he is one Senator voicing his opinion on the subject and what he would like to see. If congress is ever going to be made functional again, we have to talk about these rules. And changing them back means empowering the potential minority Republicans. I would argue that biggest mistake the Democrats made in 2008 was not removing all the rules the Republicans put into place during the hold on the House. It took the Republicans over 10 years to get the House to be the little dictatorship for the Speaker that it is. But then I remember who they put up there as speaker of the house and totally understood why. Well there's no opposing voice in the Democratic party on the issue so there's that, plus the whole creatures of habit thing. Maybe he's alone, but still emblematic of how remarkably ineffectual Democrats are. No question that Trump's incompetence has caused Trump more problems than the Democratic party, if they were "resisting" someone even remotely capable they would be getting dragged through the square. Democrats are losing in popularity to literally the least liked president in history who is known by his own voters as a serial liar. I don't think many Democrats really appreciate how god awful terrible they are in the eye's of the country. Meanwhile they'd rather float ol' Joe for 2020 than admit they need to be more like the most popular politician in the country that they spent the last year or so marginalizing and trying desperately to argue that he and his idea's are actually less popular than Hillary/Democrats and their ideas. This isn’t new for Democrats or progressives as a whole. Look at the EU. Or if you need the US example, go back to Nixon. The Democrats have a popular, young, charismatic president in JFK. He dies and the next election they are dumpstered by the trash fire that was Nixon. If you read reports from the time, the Democratic leadership was dumbfounded and couldn’t understand what happened. There is a choice quote out there “I don’t even know a single person who voted for Nixon. I never spoke to anyone who said they would” from someone in the leadership at the time. You are not wrong, but this is part of the political cycle we go through. The “party” or the left needs renewed leadership and a way forward. That process is a fight unto itself. And that fight won’t end even if Bernie is the next presidential candidate in 2020. It won’t end after the election. You will be fighting with centrist-liberals until the heat death of the universe. Just embrace it. I can deal with that, would just be nice for them to realize how wrong they've been and how disconnected they are from the overwhelming majority of Americans both on a personal and political level. Like Hillary should probably shut up or next time she answers a question about losing, suggest that she probably shouldn't have cheated during the primary and supported that cheater being made interim chair of the DNC (replacing the previous chair who resigned in disgrace before immediately being hired by Hillary, who went on to campaign for DWS). Saying Hillary cheated in the primary is getting very old when there is not a single shred of proof. I'm actually sick and tired of the Bernie bros, more so now than before thr election. I find myself mostly leaning left but I honestly think now I would under almost no circumstance ever vote for a Bernie or anyone like him. I think Bernie would've been almost as bad as trump, and that's saying a lot. I'm referencing a very specific incident of cheating that no one disputes was both against the rules (cheating) and happened. But thanks for being an example of exactly what I'm talking about. Y, not sure what incident your talking about
Donna Brazile sending Clinton's team a debate question, CNN then fired Donna for it and the DNC made her interim chair.
Do I really have to dig up the email and the rule about not giving debate questions or do you all remember now?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I think there's an inverse correlation between the strength of a candidate and their tendency to be defended by some form of "that's just how politics works, bub" in response to unsavory behavior.
|
On May 03 2017 05:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:13 Doodsmack wrote:Can't say I disagree with her. What came through loud and clear -- despite her assertions that she made a number of mistakes in the course of the campaign -- was that Clinton believes that the election was taken from her. And that she's still mad as hell about it.
"I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off. And the evidence for that intervening event is I think compelling, persuasive and so we overcame a lot in the campaign," Clinton said at one point, citing analysis by 538's Nate Silver suggesting that up until those twin events, she was winning.
She sarcastically noted the "coincidence" that an hour after the story of Trump's lewd comments on an "Access Hollywood" taping broke, WikiLeaks revealed it had more than 50,000 private emails sent by her campaign chairman John Podesta. www.cnn.com You know, it wouldn't be so fun to mock the "Putin-Comey conspiracy" if it weren't the case that there are too many buffoons (including Clinton) who still desperately cling to that narrative to explain her defeat, as if that was the only reason she lost.
When you make the completely safe argument that there were other factors involved, it makes it pretty easy to derail the discussion. Elections are complex things, so no one will dispute that Clinton and her team totally dropped the ball.
But that doesn’t make the Wikileaks/Comey any less compelling as one of those factors. Especially when she cites the research done by Nate Silver. Both of them did have an impact on voter’s impressions of her and their decisions.
|
On May 03 2017 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 05:11 hunts wrote:On May 03 2017 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:36 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The only way politics gets better is the members of congress undo all the terrible rules put in place by the GOP in the last 20 years. From the Haster rule in the House to this rule in the Senate. There does need to be a rethinking of how the chambers should conduct themselves.
But it needs to be both parties. You are not wrong that the Democrats want to hand over weapons to the GOP for no real reason. The democrats are desperate to get back to the era of bipartisanship, but they need win elections first and stay in office first.
I find it hard to believe that we are so smart that we see how obviously stupid bringing back the filibuster for Republicans to use, then losing every time Republicans are in power is, but these people who do this for a living don't see it. They see it and think losing is in their interest. The big lie is that they are fighting with each other representing the two major factions of "the people". The fight is a lie to cover for the fact that they both represent the wealthy, with sometimes opposing factions within the wealthy. Why would you think that message is for everyone? Or the official line of the DNC? I understand the fear of the DNC doing stupid things. Their record shows they love to shoot themselves in the leg. There is a chance that he is one Senator voicing his opinion on the subject and what he would like to see. If congress is ever going to be made functional again, we have to talk about these rules. And changing them back means empowering the potential minority Republicans. I would argue that biggest mistake the Democrats made in 2008 was not removing all the rules the Republicans put into place during the hold on the House. It took the Republicans over 10 years to get the House to be the little dictatorship for the Speaker that it is. But then I remember who they put up there as speaker of the house and totally understood why. Well there's no opposing voice in the Democratic party on the issue so there's that, plus the whole creatures of habit thing. Maybe he's alone, but still emblematic of how remarkably ineffectual Democrats are. No question that Trump's incompetence has caused Trump more problems than the Democratic party, if they were "resisting" someone even remotely capable they would be getting dragged through the square. Democrats are losing in popularity to literally the least liked president in history who is known by his own voters as a serial liar. I don't think many Democrats really appreciate how god awful terrible they are in the eye's of the country. Meanwhile they'd rather float ol' Joe for 2020 than admit they need to be more like the most popular politician in the country that they spent the last year or so marginalizing and trying desperately to argue that he and his idea's are actually less popular than Hillary/Democrats and their ideas. This isn’t new for Democrats or progressives as a whole. Look at the EU. Or if you need the US example, go back to Nixon. The Democrats have a popular, young, charismatic president in JFK. He dies and the next election they are dumpstered by the trash fire that was Nixon. If you read reports from the time, the Democratic leadership was dumbfounded and couldn’t understand what happened. There is a choice quote out there “I don’t even know a single person who voted for Nixon. I never spoke to anyone who said they would” from someone in the leadership at the time. You are not wrong, but this is part of the political cycle we go through. The “party” or the left needs renewed leadership and a way forward. That process is a fight unto itself. And that fight won’t end even if Bernie is the next presidential candidate in 2020. It won’t end after the election. You will be fighting with centrist-liberals until the heat death of the universe. Just embrace it. I can deal with that, would just be nice for them to realize how wrong they've been and how disconnected they are from the overwhelming majority of Americans both on a personal and political level. Like Hillary should probably shut up or next time she answers a question about losing, suggest that she probably shouldn't have cheated during the primary and supported that cheater being made interim chair of the DNC (replacing the previous chair who resigned in disgrace before immediately being hired by Hillary, who went on to campaign for DWS). Saying Hillary cheated in the primary is getting very old when there is not a single shred of proof. I'm actually sick and tired of the Bernie bros, more so now than before thr election. I find myself mostly leaning left but I honestly think now I would under almost no circumstance ever vote for a Bernie or anyone like him. I think Bernie would've been almost as bad as trump, and that's saying a lot. I'm referencing a very specific incident of cheating that no one disputes was both against the rules (cheating) and happened. But thanks for being an example of exactly what I'm talking about. Y, not sure what incident your talking about Donna Brazile sending Clinton's team a debate question, CNN then fired Donna for it and the DNC made her interim chair. Do I really have to dig up the email and the rule about not giving debate questions or do you all remember now?
That is your big cheating incident?
Well to each his own I guess.
|
On May 03 2017 05:39 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 05:11 hunts wrote:On May 03 2017 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:36 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I find it hard to believe that we are so smart that we see how obviously stupid bringing back the filibuster for Republicans to use, then losing every time Republicans are in power is, but these people who do this for a living don't see it.
They see it and think losing is in their interest.
The big lie is that they are fighting with each other representing the two major factions of "the people". The fight is a lie to cover for the fact that they both represent the wealthy, with sometimes opposing factions within the wealthy. Why would you think that message is for everyone? Or the official line of the DNC? I understand the fear of the DNC doing stupid things. Their record shows they love to shoot themselves in the leg. There is a chance that he is one Senator voicing his opinion on the subject and what he would like to see. If congress is ever going to be made functional again, we have to talk about these rules. And changing them back means empowering the potential minority Republicans. I would argue that biggest mistake the Democrats made in 2008 was not removing all the rules the Republicans put into place during the hold on the House. It took the Republicans over 10 years to get the House to be the little dictatorship for the Speaker that it is. But then I remember who they put up there as speaker of the house and totally understood why. Well there's no opposing voice in the Democratic party on the issue so there's that, plus the whole creatures of habit thing. Maybe he's alone, but still emblematic of how remarkably ineffectual Democrats are. No question that Trump's incompetence has caused Trump more problems than the Democratic party, if they were "resisting" someone even remotely capable they would be getting dragged through the square. Democrats are losing in popularity to literally the least liked president in history who is known by his own voters as a serial liar. I don't think many Democrats really appreciate how god awful terrible they are in the eye's of the country. Meanwhile they'd rather float ol' Joe for 2020 than admit they need to be more like the most popular politician in the country that they spent the last year or so marginalizing and trying desperately to argue that he and his idea's are actually less popular than Hillary/Democrats and their ideas. This isn’t new for Democrats or progressives as a whole. Look at the EU. Or if you need the US example, go back to Nixon. The Democrats have a popular, young, charismatic president in JFK. He dies and the next election they are dumpstered by the trash fire that was Nixon. If you read reports from the time, the Democratic leadership was dumbfounded and couldn’t understand what happened. There is a choice quote out there “I don’t even know a single person who voted for Nixon. I never spoke to anyone who said they would” from someone in the leadership at the time. You are not wrong, but this is part of the political cycle we go through. The “party” or the left needs renewed leadership and a way forward. That process is a fight unto itself. And that fight won’t end even if Bernie is the next presidential candidate in 2020. It won’t end after the election. You will be fighting with centrist-liberals until the heat death of the universe. Just embrace it. I can deal with that, would just be nice for them to realize how wrong they've been and how disconnected they are from the overwhelming majority of Americans both on a personal and political level. Like Hillary should probably shut up or next time she answers a question about losing, suggest that she probably shouldn't have cheated during the primary and supported that cheater being made interim chair of the DNC (replacing the previous chair who resigned in disgrace before immediately being hired by Hillary, who went on to campaign for DWS). Saying Hillary cheated in the primary is getting very old when there is not a single shred of proof. I'm actually sick and tired of the Bernie bros, more so now than before thr election. I find myself mostly leaning left but I honestly think now I would under almost no circumstance ever vote for a Bernie or anyone like him. I think Bernie would've been almost as bad as trump, and that's saying a lot. I'm referencing a very specific incident of cheating that no one disputes was both against the rules (cheating) and happened. But thanks for being an example of exactly what I'm talking about. Y, not sure what incident your talking about Donna Brazile sending Clinton's team a debate question, CNN then fired Donna for it and the DNC made her interim chair. Do I really have to dig up the email and the rule about not giving debate questions or do you all remember now? That is your big cheating incident? Well to each his own I guess.
No it's not my "big cheating incident", it is a specific and easily provable instance of cheating, and the whole acting like it isn't a problem is what I'm talking about.
|
On May 03 2017 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 05:11 hunts wrote:On May 03 2017 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:36 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:18 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
The only way politics gets better is the members of congress undo all the terrible rules put in place by the GOP in the last 20 years. From the Haster rule in the House to this rule in the Senate. There does need to be a rethinking of how the chambers should conduct themselves.
But it needs to be both parties. You are not wrong that the Democrats want to hand over weapons to the GOP for no real reason. The democrats are desperate to get back to the era of bipartisanship, but they need win elections first and stay in office first.
I find it hard to believe that we are so smart that we see how obviously stupid bringing back the filibuster for Republicans to use, then losing every time Republicans are in power is, but these people who do this for a living don't see it. They see it and think losing is in their interest. The big lie is that they are fighting with each other representing the two major factions of "the people". The fight is a lie to cover for the fact that they both represent the wealthy, with sometimes opposing factions within the wealthy. Why would you think that message is for everyone? Or the official line of the DNC? I understand the fear of the DNC doing stupid things. Their record shows they love to shoot themselves in the leg. There is a chance that he is one Senator voicing his opinion on the subject and what he would like to see. If congress is ever going to be made functional again, we have to talk about these rules. And changing them back means empowering the potential minority Republicans. I would argue that biggest mistake the Democrats made in 2008 was not removing all the rules the Republicans put into place during the hold on the House. It took the Republicans over 10 years to get the House to be the little dictatorship for the Speaker that it is. But then I remember who they put up there as speaker of the house and totally understood why. Well there's no opposing voice in the Democratic party on the issue so there's that, plus the whole creatures of habit thing. Maybe he's alone, but still emblematic of how remarkably ineffectual Democrats are. No question that Trump's incompetence has caused Trump more problems than the Democratic party, if they were "resisting" someone even remotely capable they would be getting dragged through the square. Democrats are losing in popularity to literally the least liked president in history who is known by his own voters as a serial liar. I don't think many Democrats really appreciate how god awful terrible they are in the eye's of the country. Meanwhile they'd rather float ol' Joe for 2020 than admit they need to be more like the most popular politician in the country that they spent the last year or so marginalizing and trying desperately to argue that he and his idea's are actually less popular than Hillary/Democrats and their ideas. This isn’t new for Democrats or progressives as a whole. Look at the EU. Or if you need the US example, go back to Nixon. The Democrats have a popular, young, charismatic president in JFK. He dies and the next election they are dumpstered by the trash fire that was Nixon. If you read reports from the time, the Democratic leadership was dumbfounded and couldn’t understand what happened. There is a choice quote out there “I don’t even know a single person who voted for Nixon. I never spoke to anyone who said they would” from someone in the leadership at the time. You are not wrong, but this is part of the political cycle we go through. The “party” or the left needs renewed leadership and a way forward. That process is a fight unto itself. And that fight won’t end even if Bernie is the next presidential candidate in 2020. It won’t end after the election. You will be fighting with centrist-liberals until the heat death of the universe. Just embrace it. I can deal with that, would just be nice for them to realize how wrong they've been and how disconnected they are from the overwhelming majority of Americans both on a personal and political level. Like Hillary should probably shut up or next time she answers a question about losing, suggest that she probably shouldn't have cheated during the primary and supported that cheater being made interim chair of the DNC (replacing the previous chair who resigned in disgrace before immediately being hired by Hillary, who went on to campaign for DWS). Saying Hillary cheated in the primary is getting very old when there is not a single shred of proof. I'm actually sick and tired of the Bernie bros, more so now than before thr election. I find myself mostly leaning left but I honestly think now I would under almost no circumstance ever vote for a Bernie or anyone like him. I think Bernie would've been almost as bad as trump, and that's saying a lot. I'm referencing a very specific incident of cheating that no one disputes was both against the rules (cheating) and happened. But thanks for being an example of exactly what I'm talking about. Y, not sure what incident your talking about Donna Brazile sending Clinton's team a debate question, CNN then fired Donna for it and the DNC made her interim chair. Do I really have to dig up the email and the rule about not giving debate questions or do you all remember now?
So how is this Hillary cheating? Did she bribe or threaten her for that 1 debate question? Is Hillary now Donna Brazile herself? Do you think it made a difference given she was debating trump? I'd say this is Donna Brazile attempting to cheat for hillary, or potentially just unintentionally telling her about a question. But this is definitely not Hillary cheating unless you have some solid proof that Hillary orchastated the great heist of one debate queation.
|
Do we really have to re-hash the election and primary all over again? No one’s mind is going to be changed by this argument. GH will not convince anyone that there was cheating on the level he describes and we will never convince them that there wasn’t cheating.
|
On May 03 2017 05:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:13 Doodsmack wrote:Can't say I disagree with her. What came through loud and clear -- despite her assertions that she made a number of mistakes in the course of the campaign -- was that Clinton believes that the election was taken from her. And that she's still mad as hell about it.
"I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off. And the evidence for that intervening event is I think compelling, persuasive and so we overcame a lot in the campaign," Clinton said at one point, citing analysis by 538's Nate Silver suggesting that up until those twin events, she was winning.
She sarcastically noted the "coincidence" that an hour after the story of Trump's lewd comments on an "Access Hollywood" taping broke, WikiLeaks revealed it had more than 50,000 private emails sent by her campaign chairman John Podesta. www.cnn.com You know, it wouldn't be so fun to mock the "Putin-Comey conspiracy" if it weren't the case that there are too many buffoons (including Clinton) who still desperately cling to that narrative to explain her defeat, as if that was the only reason she lost.
Hillary didn't say it's the only reason she lost, nor did I, and no one thinks there's a Putin-Comey conspiracy.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 03 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:18 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:13 Doodsmack wrote:Can't say I disagree with her. What came through loud and clear -- despite her assertions that she made a number of mistakes in the course of the campaign -- was that Clinton believes that the election was taken from her. And that she's still mad as hell about it.
"I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off. And the evidence for that intervening event is I think compelling, persuasive and so we overcame a lot in the campaign," Clinton said at one point, citing analysis by 538's Nate Silver suggesting that up until those twin events, she was winning.
She sarcastically noted the "coincidence" that an hour after the story of Trump's lewd comments on an "Access Hollywood" taping broke, WikiLeaks revealed it had more than 50,000 private emails sent by her campaign chairman John Podesta. www.cnn.com You know, it wouldn't be so fun to mock the "Putin-Comey conspiracy" if it weren't the case that there are too many buffoons (including Clinton) who still desperately cling to that narrative to explain her defeat, as if that was the only reason she lost. When you make the completely safe argument that there were other factors involved, it makes it pretty easy to derail the discussion. Elections are complex things, so no one will dispute that Clinton and her team totally dropped the ball. But that doesn’t make the Wikileaks/Comey any less compelling as one of those factors. Especially when she cites the research done by Nate Silver. Both of them did have an impact on voter’s impressions of her and their decisions.
Yes, they were both factors - possibly even tipping factors. But ultimately they are micro issues, the unfortunate result of circumstance that every candidate has to make do with. Shit occasionally happens, that much is true. It happened to the other side all the time - the Access Hollywood tape being one of them. But it's important to acknowledge who made the opening for the Putin-Comey alliance to become a pivotal moment, and those have nothing to do with Putin or Comey.
I think it akin to if a candidate goes on for months about how they lost because it was too snowy across the country on election day and it disproportionately reduced turnout in their strongholds. It looks just as bitch an excuse in that scenario.
|
On May 03 2017 05:43 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 05:20 Gorsameth wrote:On May 03 2017 05:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 05:11 hunts wrote:On May 03 2017 05:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:58 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 03 2017 04:36 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 04:26 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I find it hard to believe that we are so smart that we see how obviously stupid bringing back the filibuster for Republicans to use, then losing every time Republicans are in power is, but these people who do this for a living don't see it.
They see it and think losing is in their interest.
The big lie is that they are fighting with each other representing the two major factions of "the people". The fight is a lie to cover for the fact that they both represent the wealthy, with sometimes opposing factions within the wealthy. Why would you think that message is for everyone? Or the official line of the DNC? I understand the fear of the DNC doing stupid things. Their record shows they love to shoot themselves in the leg. There is a chance that he is one Senator voicing his opinion on the subject and what he would like to see. If congress is ever going to be made functional again, we have to talk about these rules. And changing them back means empowering the potential minority Republicans. I would argue that biggest mistake the Democrats made in 2008 was not removing all the rules the Republicans put into place during the hold on the House. It took the Republicans over 10 years to get the House to be the little dictatorship for the Speaker that it is. But then I remember who they put up there as speaker of the house and totally understood why. Well there's no opposing voice in the Democratic party on the issue so there's that, plus the whole creatures of habit thing. Maybe he's alone, but still emblematic of how remarkably ineffectual Democrats are. No question that Trump's incompetence has caused Trump more problems than the Democratic party, if they were "resisting" someone even remotely capable they would be getting dragged through the square. Democrats are losing in popularity to literally the least liked president in history who is known by his own voters as a serial liar. I don't think many Democrats really appreciate how god awful terrible they are in the eye's of the country. Meanwhile they'd rather float ol' Joe for 2020 than admit they need to be more like the most popular politician in the country that they spent the last year or so marginalizing and trying desperately to argue that he and his idea's are actually less popular than Hillary/Democrats and their ideas. This isn’t new for Democrats or progressives as a whole. Look at the EU. Or if you need the US example, go back to Nixon. The Democrats have a popular, young, charismatic president in JFK. He dies and the next election they are dumpstered by the trash fire that was Nixon. If you read reports from the time, the Democratic leadership was dumbfounded and couldn’t understand what happened. There is a choice quote out there “I don’t even know a single person who voted for Nixon. I never spoke to anyone who said they would” from someone in the leadership at the time. You are not wrong, but this is part of the political cycle we go through. The “party” or the left needs renewed leadership and a way forward. That process is a fight unto itself. And that fight won’t end even if Bernie is the next presidential candidate in 2020. It won’t end after the election. You will be fighting with centrist-liberals until the heat death of the universe. Just embrace it. I can deal with that, would just be nice for them to realize how wrong they've been and how disconnected they are from the overwhelming majority of Americans both on a personal and political level. Like Hillary should probably shut up or next time she answers a question about losing, suggest that she probably shouldn't have cheated during the primary and supported that cheater being made interim chair of the DNC (replacing the previous chair who resigned in disgrace before immediately being hired by Hillary, who went on to campaign for DWS). Saying Hillary cheated in the primary is getting very old when there is not a single shred of proof. I'm actually sick and tired of the Bernie bros, more so now than before thr election. I find myself mostly leaning left but I honestly think now I would under almost no circumstance ever vote for a Bernie or anyone like him. I think Bernie would've been almost as bad as trump, and that's saying a lot. I'm referencing a very specific incident of cheating that no one disputes was both against the rules (cheating) and happened. But thanks for being an example of exactly what I'm talking about. Y, not sure what incident your talking about Donna Brazile sending Clinton's team a debate question, CNN then fired Donna for it and the DNC made her interim chair. Do I really have to dig up the email and the rule about not giving debate questions or do you all remember now? So how is this Hillary cheating? Did she bribe or threaten her for that 1 debate question? Is Hillary now Donna Brazile herself? Do you think it made a difference given she was debating trump? I'd say this is Donna Brazile attempting to cheat for hillary, or potentially just unintentionally telling her about a question. But this is definitely not Hillary cheating unless you have some solid proof that Hillary orchastated the great heist of one debate queation.
If you want to run with the idea that Hillary's team hid this from her and that makes her innocent you're more lost than I thought. It also ignores the rest of the whole DWS resigning then being put on her team, then Donna who definitely cheated, was made interim chair of the DNC despite Hillary's team knowing she cheated.
That it had to be some heist orchestrated by Hillary in order to be something she needs to admit before she has any hope of being relevant is silly. That she needs to own what she and her team did wrong regarding the progressive wing (hint it's not railing on about how it's unfair how the federal investigation she was under and lied about repeatedly cost her the win) is just how it is. Otherwise she's just going to continue to enrage the wing of the party that has the most popular representative in the country.
|
On May 03 2017 05:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 05:18 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:13 Doodsmack wrote:Can't say I disagree with her. What came through loud and clear -- despite her assertions that she made a number of mistakes in the course of the campaign -- was that Clinton believes that the election was taken from her. And that she's still mad as hell about it.
"I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off. And the evidence for that intervening event is I think compelling, persuasive and so we overcame a lot in the campaign," Clinton said at one point, citing analysis by 538's Nate Silver suggesting that up until those twin events, she was winning.
She sarcastically noted the "coincidence" that an hour after the story of Trump's lewd comments on an "Access Hollywood" taping broke, WikiLeaks revealed it had more than 50,000 private emails sent by her campaign chairman John Podesta. www.cnn.com You know, it wouldn't be so fun to mock the "Putin-Comey conspiracy" if it weren't the case that there are too many buffoons (including Clinton) who still desperately cling to that narrative to explain her defeat, as if that was the only reason she lost. When you make the completely safe argument that there were other factors involved, it makes it pretty easy to derail the discussion. Elections are complex things, so no one will dispute that Clinton and her team totally dropped the ball. But that doesn’t make the Wikileaks/Comey any less compelling as one of those factors. Especially when she cites the research done by Nate Silver. Both of them did have an impact on voter’s impressions of her and their decisions. Yes, they were both factors - possibly even tipping factors. But ultimately they are micro issues, the unfortunate result of circumstance that every candidate has to make do with. Shit occasionally happens, that much is true. It happened to the other side all the time - the Access Hollywood tape being one of them. But it's important to acknowledge who made the opening for the Putin-Comey alliance to become a pivotal moment, and those have nothing to do with Putin or Comey. I think it akin to if a candidate goes on for months about how they lost because it was too snowy across the country on election day and it disproportionately reduced turnout in their strongholds. It looks just as bitch an excuse in that scenario.
Russian state sponsored interference on this level is not a micro issue.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 03 2017 05:55 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:49 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 05:18 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:13 Doodsmack wrote:Can't say I disagree with her. What came through loud and clear -- despite her assertions that she made a number of mistakes in the course of the campaign -- was that Clinton believes that the election was taken from her. And that she's still mad as hell about it.
"I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off. And the evidence for that intervening event is I think compelling, persuasive and so we overcame a lot in the campaign," Clinton said at one point, citing analysis by 538's Nate Silver suggesting that up until those twin events, she was winning.
She sarcastically noted the "coincidence" that an hour after the story of Trump's lewd comments on an "Access Hollywood" taping broke, WikiLeaks revealed it had more than 50,000 private emails sent by her campaign chairman John Podesta. www.cnn.com You know, it wouldn't be so fun to mock the "Putin-Comey conspiracy" if it weren't the case that there are too many buffoons (including Clinton) who still desperately cling to that narrative to explain her defeat, as if that was the only reason she lost. When you make the completely safe argument that there were other factors involved, it makes it pretty easy to derail the discussion. Elections are complex things, so no one will dispute that Clinton and her team totally dropped the ball. But that doesn’t make the Wikileaks/Comey any less compelling as one of those factors. Especially when she cites the research done by Nate Silver. Both of them did have an impact on voter’s impressions of her and their decisions. Yes, they were both factors - possibly even tipping factors. But ultimately they are micro issues, the unfortunate result of circumstance that every candidate has to make do with. Shit occasionally happens, that much is true. It happened to the other side all the time - the Access Hollywood tape being one of them. But it's important to acknowledge who made the opening for the Putin-Comey alliance to become a pivotal moment, and those have nothing to do with Putin or Comey. I think it akin to if a candidate goes on for months about how they lost because it was too snowy across the country on election day and it disproportionately reduced turnout in their strongholds. It looks just as bitch an excuse in that scenario. Russian state sponsored interference on this level is not a micro issue.
It is in terms of how much potential it has to shift the voting tally.
|
On May 03 2017 05:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 05:18 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:13 Doodsmack wrote:Can't say I disagree with her. What came through loud and clear -- despite her assertions that she made a number of mistakes in the course of the campaign -- was that Clinton believes that the election was taken from her. And that she's still mad as hell about it.
"I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off. And the evidence for that intervening event is I think compelling, persuasive and so we overcame a lot in the campaign," Clinton said at one point, citing analysis by 538's Nate Silver suggesting that up until those twin events, she was winning.
She sarcastically noted the "coincidence" that an hour after the story of Trump's lewd comments on an "Access Hollywood" taping broke, WikiLeaks revealed it had more than 50,000 private emails sent by her campaign chairman John Podesta. www.cnn.com You know, it wouldn't be so fun to mock the "Putin-Comey conspiracy" if it weren't the case that there are too many buffoons (including Clinton) who still desperately cling to that narrative to explain her defeat, as if that was the only reason she lost. When you make the completely safe argument that there were other factors involved, it makes it pretty easy to derail the discussion. Elections are complex things, so no one will dispute that Clinton and her team totally dropped the ball. But that doesn’t make the Wikileaks/Comey any less compelling as one of those factors. Especially when she cites the research done by Nate Silver. Both of them did have an impact on voter’s impressions of her and their decisions. Yes, they were both factors - possibly even tipping factors. But ultimately they are micro issues, the unfortunate result of circumstance that every candidate has to make do with. Shit occasionally happens, that much is true. It happened to the other side all the time - the Access Hollywood tape being one of them. But it's important to acknowledge who made the opening for the Putin-Comey alliance to become a pivotal moment, and those have nothing to do with Putin or Comey. I think it akin to if a candidate goes on for months about how they lost because it was too snowy across the country on election day and it disproportionately reduced turnout in their strongholds. It looks just as bitch an excuse in that scenario.
Since election day we have heard your argument about electability. It is old and we get it. No one is talking about an alliance but you. None of doesn’t change the fact that she might have won were it not for the Comey letter and wikileaks. We don’t know and nothing will change that.
And seriously, I know your Russian and all, but can you not use Whataboutism every time this topic comes up? Can you pick a less Russian way to change the topic?
On May 03 2017 05:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:55 Doodsmack wrote:On May 03 2017 05:49 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:38 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 05:18 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:13 Doodsmack wrote:Can't say I disagree with her. What came through loud and clear -- despite her assertions that she made a number of mistakes in the course of the campaign -- was that Clinton believes that the election was taken from her. And that she's still mad as hell about it.
"I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey's letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off. And the evidence for that intervening event is I think compelling, persuasive and so we overcame a lot in the campaign," Clinton said at one point, citing analysis by 538's Nate Silver suggesting that up until those twin events, she was winning.
She sarcastically noted the "coincidence" that an hour after the story of Trump's lewd comments on an "Access Hollywood" taping broke, WikiLeaks revealed it had more than 50,000 private emails sent by her campaign chairman John Podesta. www.cnn.com You know, it wouldn't be so fun to mock the "Putin-Comey conspiracy" if it weren't the case that there are too many buffoons (including Clinton) who still desperately cling to that narrative to explain her defeat, as if that was the only reason she lost. When you make the completely safe argument that there were other factors involved, it makes it pretty easy to derail the discussion. Elections are complex things, so no one will dispute that Clinton and her team totally dropped the ball. But that doesn’t make the Wikileaks/Comey any less compelling as one of those factors. Especially when she cites the research done by Nate Silver. Both of them did have an impact on voter’s impressions of her and their decisions. Yes, they were both factors - possibly even tipping factors. But ultimately they are micro issues, the unfortunate result of circumstance that every candidate has to make do with. Shit occasionally happens, that much is true. It happened to the other side all the time - the Access Hollywood tape being one of them. But it's important to acknowledge who made the opening for the Putin-Comey alliance to become a pivotal moment, and those have nothing to do with Putin or Comey. I think it akin to if a candidate goes on for months about how they lost because it was too snowy across the country on election day and it disproportionately reduced turnout in their strongholds. It looks just as bitch an excuse in that scenario. Russian state sponsored interference on this level is not a micro issue. It is in terms of how much potential it has to shift the voting tally.
Unknown and never will be. That is the power of influencing elections through propaganda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
