|
Xae posted:Name one Legislative Accomplishment of Sanders during his 40 years in public office. Name one accomplishment of Donald Trump during the last 40 years.
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
ditto. y'all gotta stop corncobbing yourselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Name one accomplishment of Donald Trump during the last 40 years. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Dishonesty, Deflection, Denial and Circle jerking. The Sanderista specialty. Sanders would have been painted as a "do nothing" politician. His own loving fanboys can't even name one thing he did.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
it's about what he would do. what did clinton's accomplishments in office get her in this election. you also didn't answer his question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it's about what he would do. In case you didn't notice during the election cycle there was a different standard for Trump and his opponent. Whomever that would be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Xae posted:Dishonesty, Deflection, Denial and Circle jerking. I take it that around eight and a half years ago you were angrily demanding to know what the gently caress that Obama nobody had ever accomplished?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Xae posted:Dishonesty, Deflection, Denial and Circle jerking. he didn't deflect, he rightfully pointed out your question was irrelevant legislative experience is obviously not a requirement for the presidency nor does it make you a stronger candidate
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Yes, I suppose this is why he was crushing Trump in the polls. Thanks for your received wisdom, duder. Theoretical matchup polls are useless, everyone loves someone that isn't actually running for president. e: do you think the people in those polls knew about his soviet honeymoon? Or his pro-rape essays? You better believe they'd know about that stuff if he were in the general. Plus I'm sure the Russians had all sorts of files they could leak.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Theoretical matchup polls are useless, everyone loves someone that isn't actually running for president. Well gee, thanks for that bit too, duder. I can totally believe that Sanders would have suffered far worse fron the GOP attack machine than the lady who's been demonized nonstop for about 25 years straight by now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Name one accomplishment of Donald Trump during the last 40 years. lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Theoretical matchup polls are useless, everyone loves someone that isn't actually running for president. Or about the Pay for Play and financial mismanagement scandal his wife had.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:I take it that around eight and a half years ago you were angrily demanding to know what the gently caress that Obama nobody had ever accomplished? I was now after three consecutive presidential races, experience and accomplishments are meaningless and facts don't matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Jack2142 posted:I was now after three consecutive presidential races, experience and accomplishments are meaningless and facts don't matter. The lesson from 2000-2016 elections is that policy doesn't matter. Charisma does.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Xae posted:The lesson from 2000-2016 elections is that policy doesn't matter. Charisma does. LOL it goes back way further than that. Like back to Roosevelt giving speeches over the loving radio.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
While we're talking up successes for Hillary how about that Iraq vote or that stellar run as Secretary of State where we helped turn Syria into an outright disaster! But alteast she carried hot sauce in her purse, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
So who's charismatic and young that can be trotted out now regardless of how poo poo their policies actually are?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Xae posted:The lesson from 2000-2016 elections is that policy doesn't matter. Charisma does. I think the lesson is actually that simple economic policy is what matters and social/racial/gender issues don't matter in the slightest. Evangelicals don't give a flying gently caress about evangelical issues, Women don't give much of a gently caress about women''s issues. The only thing we care about in america is money and hope. Promise the world and then do what you were going to do anyways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:33
|
|
|
Rexicon1 posted:I think the lesson is actually that simple economic policy is what matters and social/racial/gender issues don't matter in the slightest. Evangelicals don't give a flying gently caress about evangelical issues, Women don't give much of a gently caress about women''s issues. The only thing we care about in america is money and hope. Promise the world and then do what you were going to do anyways. Reduce it to economic SLOGANS and you're probably on the right track. Nobody understands or cares about policy detail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
zegermans posted:So who's charismatic and young that can be trotted out now regardless of how poo poo their policies actually are? we could have someone young and charismatic and has good policies. i'm sure sanders will find someone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Well, while the rest of you fight each other over who would have been a better candidate in an election that's over, I'll be over there and trying to help rebuild this party and not wish that anyone with a political career longer than five minutes would vanish. When y'all are done fighting, then maybe you can join the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:48
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Well, while the rest of you fight each other over who would have been a better candidate in an election that's over, I'll be over there and trying to help rebuild this party and not wish that anyone with a political career longer than five minutes would vanish. When y'all are done fighting, then maybe you can join the rest of us. there's a thread all about this in c-spam http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3797415&perpage=40&pagenumber=2#pti18 feel free to join us in trying to save the dems
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:LOL it goes back way further than that. More like all the way back to ~ Ancient Athens ~
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
Arguing about whether or not Bernie would have won the general is loving stupid, but it would also be loving stupid to ignore the excitement he generated. The Dems' problem since Obama came into office is that their platform basically boiled down to "okay, yeah, poo poo's kind of messed up right now and nothing's getting done about it, but have you seen those other guys?  ," which was always going to backfire eventually. Bernie provided a platform that actually suggested doing something, rather than just keeping what was already in place out of fear of the other side. He might not have won the primary, but I think even die-hard Hillary supporters will admit that Bernie's voters were more excited to vote for him than Hillary voters were for her.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:12
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/797531284784422913
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:17
|
|
|
lol the replies on that tweet are incredible. nobody ever learns.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:lol the replies on that tweet are incredible. nobody ever learns. https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/797532801528643584
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Well, while the rest of you fight each other over who would have been a better candidate in an election that's over, I'll be over there and trying to help rebuild this party and not wish that anyone with a political career longer than five minutes would vanish. When y'all are done fighting, then maybe you can join the rest of us. Nice smugging, mate. But seriously, if the Democratic party is to have a future it needs to be hammered into people that neoliberalism doesn't loving work and fielding neoliberal candidates will only lead to defeat. Hence one should not leave the assertion that the leftist candidate is ~unelectable~ and would do just as badly as the neoliberal unchallenged, because that would let the idiots who lost the most critical election of the century off the hook for their fuckups and hinder the necessary reforms of the party.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SeanMcElwee/status/797540459442737152
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
This, this, this a thousand times this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Nice smugging, mate. Call me smug all you want. Hell, I'm proud of it. I'm going to take that smugness and go help prop up a progressive candidate for president and help get some progressive candidates in state and federal offices with Sanders and Warren's leadership. I love Howard Dean and thank him for what he did in 2006 and I believe it can be done again, but I'd rather it not be Dean because he had his turn as DNC chair already. I was behind Clinton from day one and if Sanders had come out on top instead, then I would have been right behind him. But I'm not going to masturbate over a general election that didn't happen. I don't care if a Sanders presidency would have brought down the angel of Karl Marx from heaven so that he could bless the Communist States of America. I don't care because that's not what happened and I see no use in romanticizing about how he was the better candidate. And neither should the rest of you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
it's not romanticizing it's just the truth of the matter.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it's not romanticizing it's just the truth of the matter. Fine. It's the truth. I hope you sleep better at night.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:03
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Call me smug all you want. Hell, I'm proud of it. I'm going to take that smugness and go help prop up a progressive candidate for president and help get some progressive candidates in state and federal offices with Sanders and Warren's leadership. I love Howard Dean and thank him for what he did in 2006 and I believe it can be done again, but I'd rather it not be Dean because he had his turn as DNC chair already. I was behind Clinton from day one and if Sanders had come out on top instead, then I would have been right behind him. Well, you're not going to be very helpful if you're unwilling to learn about what went wrong, and this includes trying to shut down discussion about what could have been done better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
Star Man posted:But I'm not going to masturbate over a general election that didn't happen. I don't care if a Sanders presidency would have brought down the angel of Karl Marx from heaven so that he could bless the Communist States of America. I don't care because that's not what happened and I see no use in romanticizing about how he was the better candidate. And neither should the rest of you. I think the reason people bring up Sanders isn't the misguided thought that "oh the reason we lost was because we didn't have someone Marxist enough" I think it's just people reflecting (sometimes poorly) at the idea that Neoliberal candidates don't really represent ANYONE in America. They really just represent themselves and their donors. I don't really think these polls saying that Bernie would have won are useful other than as propaganda against Neoliberalism, but the idea of Bernie over Clinton is a symbol of the war the will likely be going on within the Democratic party until about 2018.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Star Man posted:Fine. It's the truth. it makes me feel worse actually.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
I have nothing insightful to add as to what happened and how. But based on what i've been reading the past few days, and my own feelings (which dont mean much), I feel like Hillary and the Dems were too complacent. The Republicans were too complacent a decade ago, thinking they could just do whatever while giving lip service to socially conservative values. They could gently caress people forever, but as long as they said "I, too, believe marriage is between a man and a woman" or whatever, they could keep doing it indefinitely. Well, this time around, it was the Democrats who did that, but on the opposite end of the spectrum. They thought they didn't have to offer anything concrete or substantial, just wave a rainbow flag around and pretend they're progressive and defenders of civil rights. As a trans person, Hillary and her supporters trying to act like she's pro-LGBT always seemed kinda fake. It's well known that she was anti-gay marriage up until a few years ago, after the writing was on the wall. So when she becomes the candidate and everyone's like "YAS SLAY KWEEEEEE" like she's some progressive crusader who's gonna give those cis-het fuckboys what for, it was grating. I still voted for her but i wasn't nearly as excited for her as I was for Obama, even in 2012. And I'm not saying that Hillary lost because she pretended she gave a poo poo about LGBT people or whatever. But she didn't offer anything substantial to anyone. Waving a rainbow flag wasn't enough. And now gay marriage and Roe vs Wade have a decent chance of being repealed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
zegermans posted:Or his pro-rape essays? You do realize that in two months the sitting president will be someone who has not only confessed to sexual assault on tape but that is also possibly a rapist?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:gently caress that loser Clinton. She was the Annointed Superpolitician who was supposed to win all the elections. Toss her and all her biggest supporters in the trash, she was a load of hot air. iirc, US Pol was filled with posters dismissing anti-Clinton sentiments out of hand.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 17:34 |
|
|
Blue Star posted:I have nothing insightful to add as to what happened and how. But based on what i've been reading the past few days, and my own feelings (which dont mean much), I feel like Hillary and the Dems were too complacent. The Republicans were too complacent a decade ago, thinking they could just do whatever while giving lip service to socially conservative values. They could gently caress people forever, but as long as they said "I, too, believe marriage is between a man and a woman" or whatever, they could keep doing it indefinitely. Well, this time around, it was the Democrats who did that, but on the opposite end of the spectrum. They thought they didn't have to offer anything concrete or substantial, just wave a rainbow flag around and pretend they're progressive and defenders of civil rights. As a trans person, Hillary and her supporters trying to act like she's pro-LGBT always seemed kinda fake. It's well known that she was anti-gay marriage up until a few years ago, after the writing was on the wall. So when she becomes the candidate and everyone's like "YAS SLAY KWEEEEEE" like she's some progressive crusader who's gonna give those cis-het fuckboys what for, it was grating. this exactly loving this
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2016 23:12
|
|