Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 16, 2017, 09:59:29 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 298
76  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: We're winning in Florida. We're winning in Ohio. on: November 21, 2016, 02:32:29 am
He was right. Kudos. But to say it was mostly based on things other than gut, hope, and faith would be silly. There is a reason most people did not share Trump's prediction.
77  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Monmouth: Clinton +11 in CO on: November 21, 2016, 01:58:12 am
^ Well, you were both correct in explaining what should have happened.

And to be frank, it's why I get a bit pissed off at the Monday morning quarterbacking. It was always reasonable to assume she was far ahead. It's what the data showed and what common sense dictated, at least up until Comey's October Surprise when things got hazy. So given all this, I don't think you can really blame them for not seeing the need to shake up their strategy. Obviously hindsight is 20/20, but... you don't have hindsight when you're in the thick of it, and most "evidence" suggested her strategy was getting the job done. Her enthusiasm registered as on par with Trump's, she was winning everywhere she needed and then some, and the senate definitely looked like it would flip.

It wasn't the case. Were she and her team expected to be magical?
78  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The Hillary of 2008 vs. Trump on: November 21, 2016, 01:41:40 am
... 2008 Hillary would have lost the primary.

Against Sanders? I highly doubt so.

Nah, I agree with Kingpoleon. 2008 Hillary would have been competing in the "same lane" as Sanders. He'd beat her at that game.

In fact, one could almost argue that Sanders is the reason it was impossible for us to have 2008 Hillary in the general election.
79  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The “Who is running in 2020?” tea leaves thread on: November 21, 2016, 01:23:31 am
Here's another picture of people preparing to tear each other's throats out on the 2020 Democratic primary debate stage in a few years:




I would enthusiastically vote for any of these 3 potential candidates. If I had to choose one though I'd probably pick Harris

All are absolute lightweights compared to Hillary Clinton, but I'd definitely support any of them over Donald Trump.
80  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: So what's next for Hillary? on: November 18, 2016, 01:46:47 pm
There is nothing wrong with her f-cking health. This is a sexist claim that uses a woman's body to try and delegitimize her. Stop.
81  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Could Uncle Joe Biden have beaten Trump? on: November 17, 2016, 03:40:50 am
In hindsight, I think he's maybe the only one who could have.
82  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Should the Democratic Party disavow identity politics? on: November 16, 2016, 07:15:31 pm
Obviously not, but if they do and end up nominating Bernie Sanders, it would be very tempting and fun to support Jill Stein.
83  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Transition Team/Cabinet Thread on: November 16, 2016, 07:11:59 pm
The Trump Administration is a failure already. I love, love, love it.

I wouldn't love it so soon. The people have already demonstrated their stupidity. They're willing to accept all kinds of dumb sh-t and incompetence from their champion (barf).
84  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democrats will lose in 2020 on: November 16, 2016, 07:04:29 pm
Okay. Cheesy
85  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: PAPOY Creepfest 2017 on: November 16, 2016, 03:12:47 pm
1) Everyone looks very nice/non-horrifying for an internet forum

2) Kal has a very strong pipe game

3) LLR has a very strong fro game and looks like the result if you took all of my Jewish band friends from high school and threw them into a blender

4) Someone needs to post a "picture" of Satander that is just a some Asian kid with Andrew Jackson's head photoshopped on top

5) I challenge Kal to a dramatic eyebrow match.  I will be representing Team USA.



Oh wow. For some reason I thought you were 12 years old.
86  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Democrats will lose in 2020 on: November 16, 2016, 02:39:55 pm
Yeah, because half the party thinks these swing white voters will enthusiastically vote for a movement socialist.
87  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: David Duke (R) 2020 on: November 15, 2016, 06:02:39 pm
He'd win. All he has to do is say every so often that he's not a racist. Moderate Republicans will see him as the lesser of two evils against a corrupt, elitist Democrat. It's the economy, stupid.
88  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of Hagrid on: November 14, 2016, 03:01:08 pm
Of course confrontation doesn't make people any friends, but I don't need to be friends with many of you. <3

Besides, there are forgotten white guys wearing "Trump that bitch" shirts who could really use your attention and support. Stay cool.
89  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: You might not like this on: November 14, 2016, 07:11:58 am
Hagrid will lynch you for this Roll Eyes

Not lynching anyone, and leave it to you to evoke such imagery in the hot aftermath of an election in which race played such a key role.

I vehemently disagree with his analysis, but whatever. We have more pressing things to worry about, and Hillary won't run again anyway (although, ironically, our prospective candidates are all so weak that she'd still probably be the strongest in spite of what people perceive to be her flaws).
90  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: H. A. Goodman: Bernie to run again in 2020 on: November 14, 2016, 06:30:01 am
The left is gonna push me out of this party. I hope Warren sits him down.

I don't know that it's as simple as "left." It's very clearly coming down to intersectionalists vs. (white) populists. I know where I stand and I know which I approach I believe is actually more progressive, but... good luck getting that across. I may just be back to the green avatar by the end of this too.
91  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Dark horse Democrats for 2020? on: November 14, 2016, 06:26:05 am
John Bel Edwards

He might even be able to put the south back in play.
Yeah, the same way Hillary put GA into play.

So in other words, quite significantly, assuming her team had actually devoted resources there rather than gone all in on North Carolina?

Huh
92  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Heartbroken on: November 14, 2016, 06:22:59 am
He lives to make us his ______  deleted by Torie



If you really think this okay, you deserve to be purged like the puke that you are.
93  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: "It's the economy stupid" on: November 14, 2016, 06:15:28 am
Trigger warning... rant warning... etc

Once again... Krystal Ball had the best take on this.  She has been on a roll since the election.  She should be in office.

We are a nation of haves and have-nots.  The problem is, the Democrats (and Republicans) want to divide, distract, and conquer. 

Imagine a dozen fresh baked chocolate chip cookies on a plate (what's more American than an excess of cookies?).

The "establishment" or "richie-riches" or "1%" or, as we call them in Minnesota, "Cake Eaters", take 11 of the cookies.  Then they whisper to each of the other two at the table separately "that other guy is trying to take your cookie"... and then we never confront them about the 11 they took.

The truth of the matter is:  The majority of impoverished people in this country are white.  And not only that, there is little hope for them in the face of a free-trade-globalizing-big business world.

Instead of embracing all of the have-nots who are struggling with little hope... we decide to pick and choose.  "That black woman deserves that remaining cookie more than you do, stupid white dude!"

And we know the result.  We didn't get shellacked... we got obliterated.  Your calls of "BUT THE POPULAR VOTE" don't matter.  You knew the rules.  You knew the system.  You knew what it took to win.  Instead you lectured people (you here also includes me) about privilege and intersectionality. (which, correctly, is marked as not a word by this web browser)

So yes... it is the economy, stupid.  The elites living in New York City with their cushy professional jobs are doing very well.  They can pay $12 for a cup of soup broth and feel superior to everyone else... while the schleppers and "losers" out in fly-over land get Great Value carbohydrates to go with their cheap carbohydrates.

When the cake eaters with their cake and their fancy moralizing and patronizing ideas about what is good for you are flocking to the Democratic party.. the party rooted in left-wing labor organizing, in "fighting the management", in demanding their fair share of the pie... it's time to change or get the hell out and find something better.

This is SO idiotic. For one, the black and brown people will, on average, be more impoverished than the white because they have faced unique circumstances which forced them to claw their way to even get at the table where the cookies are to begin with (those whites have always been there). Secondly, the distribution system does have invisible ways of making sure the whites still get more opportunities to have some cookie, leaving the blacks with crumbs. Third, those black and brown people, who are already more marginalized and vulnerable, are now being blamed by the white people as the reason for their hunger.

So no. It's not about playing a game of division. Reality divides. And to ask us to pretend it doesn't or that reality is colourblind is just a cheap tactic to avoid talking about hard issues. Instead, we end up perpetuating the status quo of racial inequity. Someone needs to talk about this. Not to do it makes Democrats almost as bad as Republicans.

Maybe it's not clear, but I f-cking hate that your direction is where the Democratic Party is going to go. Colourblind left populism will go no where as long as the GOP is able to use similar populism alongside the trump card of scapegoating minorities. We've got a moral obligation to treat inequity with the nuance it deserves. And race isn't just a window dressing.
How about we go back to using that populism with the people who actually screw everybody as scapegoats:  The elites and the wealthy and big business.

When poor blacks and poor whites have nothing, it benefits the wealthy to have the poors fighting over skin color, religion, identity...

And you're literally the guy, arguing from a position of your Canadian privilege (you dont' lose anything here.. you still get your healthcare), that "that guy is trying to take your cookie".. you just want to tell it to the black guy instead of the white guy.

It doesn't matter that the realtor won't sell you a house based on your skin color if you don't have the money to buy it in the first place.

Um, you're the one ignoring the different and important gradations of "vulnerable" in the social equation here, so I'm not convinced my Canadian privilege is somehow resulting in my failure see where change is needed. You're also putting words in my mouth. I'm not saying we don't also address the situation of disadvantaged whites; I'm just saying that it's morally and intellectually (and even politically and strategically) wrong to pretend that racialized minorities and white people are 1) dealing with the exact same situation and 2) requiring of the exact same solutions. Doing so inevitably results in an approach that ignores minorities and caters to whites, because that's almost always how it works.

You say that the elites want us to be arguing about race. Maybe that's true. But asking that we shut up about it is literally an example of silencing the voices of the most oppressed among us. Plus, I'm not really saying we should argue about race. We shouldn't. White people should swallow their goddamn pride, accept that people of colour face different and usually worse situations, and vow to be allies together with these people. No debating, because the facts speak for themselves. It's not about oppressing whites; it's about looking at different cases and treating them equitably, devoting different resources, attention, and solutions to different groups when needed. Why does any time a different group gets help always have to make white people feel so damn insecure? Nuance, equity, and solidarity can coexist among a united front of working class people against the elites, but it doesn't come by asking people of colour to be quiet and put their unique concerns on the backburner. It comes when the working class can understand, again, that its constituent groups have shared needs and also distinct ones.

However, I still maintain that as a political strategy against Donald Trump, having Democrats rage against the elites is not enough; Trump can stoke his crowd to rage against the elites plus minorities. So there needs to be a better campaign to humanize those who have been Othered, illustrate the fact that they often face struggles that are similar to or worse than those of working class whites, establish that working class whites and people of colour can be part of a shared movement with shared goals, and also explain why people of colour may need some additional help too, thanks to inherent biases and systematic discrimination.

So I agree there needs to be unity. But my way of getting there is decidedly different than your "silence all dissent" approach.




And to ChairmanSanchez, I simply say "no." You have become the most prideful and unreflective reactionary on this forum. One who takes glee in laughing at other people's hardships and pride in following the bigoted tendencies of your gut. I have zero interest in taking heed of your sanctimonious, patronizing, and "sore-winner" demand that I calm down.

Next.
94  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: SNL's beautiful, non-comedic tribute to 2016 Election and Leonard Cohen on: November 13, 2016, 10:38:54 pm
I'm sick and tired of comedians, who are supposed to be able to laugh at anything, turning comedy into just another bastardized venue for left leaning entertainment. Think George Carlin could survive the Clinton crowd?

I think the Leonard Cohen tribute was beautiful, but I also thought it was pretentious and antagonizing to a large amount of viewers.

Yesterday in Tallahassee was the Gaines Street Festival downtown. I went to see my best friend's band play and passed a "Dunk Trump" tank where some guy in a Trump costume could be dunked for a dollar per throw. It was being shared by Planned Parenthood and Transgender Tallahassee. I declined a chance to throw the ball but gave the Transgender Tallahassee organizers a dollar to put in the jar, and also though about giving the woman from Planned Parenthood with the bullhorn a piece of my mind as well before I realized that I was there to enjoy the music, not continue debates I've already won on Facebook

Why do they have to antagonize people? Why did SNL have to do this? Republicans like Leonard Cohen too.

 It's not about antagonizing people. Not everything is about you. I realize, though, that this is apparently a widespread problem among all Trump voters, not just you.
95  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: "It's the economy stupid" on: November 13, 2016, 04:58:39 am
You and Snowguy are literally arguing that we should ignore race when thinking about how the economy distributes capital. It is not that simple. Pretending it is is how people of colour continue to get shafted time and time again. Finally there was some hope and now we're going to piss it away because Democratic whites are willing to turn a blind eye to the unique (and yes, intersectional) concerns of their more marginalized peers and sacrifice their friends in order to win.

I won't f-ck off. There's a way to talk economics with this additional nuance. Obama did. But you people are willing to throw it away, at least if we take Snowguy's invocation of this metaphor as a reflection of his values.
96  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Heartbroken on: November 13, 2016, 04:49:02 am
I literally just had the biggest ugly cry of my life. Triggered, surprisingly, by last night's joint tribute to Clinton and Cohen on SNL. Sigh.
97  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: "It's the economy stupid" on: November 13, 2016, 04:35:29 am
Trigger warning... rant warning... etc

Once again... Krystal Ball had the best take on this.  She has been on a roll since the election.  She should be in office.

We are a nation of haves and have-nots.  The problem is, the Democrats (and Republicans) want to divide, distract, and conquer.  

Imagine a dozen fresh baked chocolate chip cookies on a plate (what's more American than an excess of cookies?).

The "establishment" or "richie-riches" or "1%" or, as we call them in Minnesota, "Cake Eaters", take 11 of the cookies.  Then they whisper to each of the other two at the table separately "that other guy is trying to take your cookie"... and then we never confront them about the 11 they took.

The truth of the matter is:  The majority of impoverished people in this country are white.  And not only that, there is little hope for them in the face of a free-trade-globalizing-big business world.

Instead of embracing all of the have-nots who are struggling with little hope... we decide to pick and choose.  "That black woman deserves that remaining cookie more than you do, stupid white dude!"

And we know the result.  We didn't get shellacked... we got obliterated.  Your calls of "BUT THE POPULAR VOTE" don't matter.  You knew the rules.  You knew the system.  You knew what it took to win.  Instead you lectured people (you here also includes me) about privilege and intersectionality. (which, correctly, is marked as not a word by this web browser)

So yes... it is the economy, stupid.  The elites living in New York City with their cushy professional jobs are doing very well.  They can pay $12 for a cup of soup broth and feel superior to everyone else... while the schleppers and "losers" out in fly-over land get Great Value carbohydrates to go with their cheap carbohydrates.

When the cake eaters with their cake and their fancy moralizing and patronizing ideas about what is good for you are flocking to the Democratic party.. the party rooted in left-wing labor organizing, in "fighting the management", in demanding their fair share of the pie... it's time to change or get the hell out and find something better.

This is SO idiotic. For one, the black and brown people will, on average, be more impoverished than the white because they have faced unique circumstances which forced them to claw their way to even get at the table where the cookies are to begin with (those whites have always been there). Secondly, the distribution system does have invisible ways of making sure the whites still get more opportunities to have some cookie, leaving the blacks with crumbs. Third, those black and brown people, who are already more marginalized and vulnerable, are now being blamed by the white people as the reason for their hunger.

So no. It's not about playing a game of division. Reality divides. And to ask us to pretend it doesn't or that reality is colourblind is just a cheap tactic to avoid talking about hard issues. Instead, we end up perpetuating the status quo of racial inequity. Someone needs to talk about this. Not to do it makes Democrats almost as bad as Republicans.

Maybe it's not clear, but I f-cking hate that your direction is where the Democratic Party is going to go. Colourblind left populism will go no where as long as the GOP is able to use similar populism alongside the trump card of scapegoating minorities. We've got a moral obligation to treat inequity with the nuance it deserves. And race isn't just a window dressing.
98  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Dark horse Democrats for 2020? on: November 13, 2016, 02:42:03 am
Martin O'Malley.
99  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Will Hillary run again? on: November 13, 2016, 02:39:34 am
Depends how big her popular vote lead is and how absolutely horrible Trump is. Some of those Rust Belt voters could have buyer's remorse and that alone might be enough to give it to her in a rematch.
100  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2020 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: H. A. Goodman: Bernie to run again in 2020 on: November 13, 2016, 02:37:13 am
79 year youngs don't win elections. And Bernie couldn't even defeat a very flawed candidate.

To be fair, he could never overcome the delegate lead she got out of the south, because blacks voted as a block for Hillary and there was nothing he could do to win them over. Without a Clinton to run against he could do well with the black community.

Well, to be equally as fair, he could have actually spent some time in his long and supposedly illustrious career reaching out to black communities and taking on their issues in his work. I mean, you're kind of discounting one of Hillary's biggest strengths. She's a listener. Sometimes she listens too much and ends up getting a muddied message (this happened in the general election, as insecure whites felt "oppressed" because she had the audacity to address other concerns), but the black community felt comfortable with her. Bernie could have had that if he had actually cared.

Your perfect candidate has flaws too. Roll Eyes
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 298


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines