LawTalkers
Page 94 of 126 « First 44849293 94 9596104 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=879)

Adder 02-06-2017 01:36 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505563)
I think so. I like the electoral college. There are "actual people" in all those states. It would be okay to disenfranchise them? Plus, this election turned on two big states. And never forget what caused those votes. "Smart" white people voted third party to protest Hillary.
How is anyone disenfranchised if we used the popular vote?

The election always turns on two big states. The popular vote would cause it to turn on voters everywhere.

If you want to keep the EC, make an argument why some votes appropriately count more than others.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 02-06-2017 01:49 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505563)
I think so. I like the electoral college. There are "actual people" in all those states. It would be okay to disenfranchise them? Plus, this election turned on two big states. And never forget what caused those votes. "Smart" white people voted third party to protest Hillary.
Rejigger the EC so states have votes proportionate to their population and I'll rethink it.

I think the part of the college that says we'll count up votes by states as a whole rather than by individuals so that regional interests need to be addressed is defensible (especially if you think regionalism is a good thing instead of a problem).

The part that says, and we'll give wildly disproportionate votes to small states really isn't. Can anyone lay out an argument as to why the vote of someone in Wyoming should count more than the vote of someone in Virginia?

Alternatively, maybe we could get an EO consolidating a bunch of the smaller states?

Hank Chinaski 02-06-2017 02:46 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 505565)
Rejigger the EC so states have votes proportionate to their population and I'll rethink it.

I think the part of the college that says we'll count up votes by states as a whole rather than by individuals so that regional interests need to be addressed is defensible (especially if you think regionalism is a good thing instead of a problem).

The part that says, and we'll give wildly disproportionate votes to small states really isn't. Can anyone lay out an argument as to why the vote of someone in Wyoming should count more than the vote of someone in Virginia?

Alternatively, maybe we could get an EO consolidating a bunch of the smaller states?
I'll support rejiggering if we also split Cali and NY in two.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-06-2017 02:47 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505566)
I'll support rejiggering if we also split Cali and NY in two.
So what is now each state gets four senators instead of two?

Hank Chinaski 02-06-2017 02:49 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 505564)
How is anyone disenfranchised if we used the popular vote?

The election always turns on two big states. The popular vote would cause it to turn on voters everywhere.

If you want to keep the EC, make an argument why some votes appropriately count more than others.
Umm, you see it going away?

If politician won't even bother to lie to you that they care, aren't you disenfranchised? Plus, name one country which really on popular vote. Parliament system do basically what we do don't they?

Hank Chinaski 02-06-2017 02:50 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505567)
So what is now each state gets four senators instead of two?
I take it Ggg will throw out the senate because it isn't fair that small states get 2. Ask him.

ThurgreedMarshall 02-06-2017 02:55 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505563)
I think so. I like the electoral college. There are "actual people" in all those states. It would be okay to disenfranchise them?
Doing away with the electoral college does not disenfranchise those who currently hold inordinate amounts of power relative to the size of their states.

TM

Tyrone Slothrop 02-06-2017 03:01 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505569)
I take it Ggg will throw out the senate because it isn't fair that small states get 2. Ask him.
It obviously isn't fair, but it's the deal we made to found the Union, so we're kinda stuck with it. OTOH, it should keep people from complaining that big states otherwise have too much pull.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 02-06-2017 03:12 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505566)
I'll support rejiggering if we also split Cali and NY in two.
Sure, why not. How 'bout Texas, which has more people than NY, and Florida, which soon will?

Tyrone Slothrop 02-06-2017 03:20 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 505550)
I wasn't sure we'd see serious adverse economic impacts from Trump, but that was the consensus, and it seemed a solid prediction. It's early, of course, but since November, the world has not collapsed. In fact, things have improved.
But this:
Goldman Sachs is now worried that Donald Trump was being serious this whole time.The folks at Goldman Sachs should, in theory, be thrilled. After all, Trump is filling his administration with the bank’s alumni. But now Goldman Sachs has come out with a dour report dampening expectations of a Trump-inspired economic boom.

When Trump won the presidency, Wall Street was overjoyed. The thinking was that he would give them big tax cuts, deregulation, and infrastructure spending. This would set the stage for economic liftoff. But this optimism was predicated on the theory that Trump was just kidding about the immigration and trade policies that Wall Street doesn’t like.

The grim conclusion that Goldman Sachs’s economists have reached could be summed up as: “Oh my God, Trump actually believes the things he says. He’s really going to clamp down on immigration and re-write trade rules along protectionists lines.” As the report actually says, “Some of the recent administrative actions by the Trump Administration serve as a reminder that the president is likely to follow through on campaign promises on trade and immigration, some of which could be disruptive for financial markets and the real economy.”

In other words: This clown in the White House is for real and our fantasies that he’d govern like a conventional Republican were folly.

In the report, anxiety about Trump’s policies is coupled with a realization that, despite unified government, gridlock persists in Washington because the Republicans can’t agree on basic policy and the two parties are becoming even more polarized. Don’t bet your farm on the expected Trump boom.
Jeet Heer

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 02-06-2017 03:24 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505573)
But this:
Goldman Sachs is now worried that Donald Trump was being serious this whole time.The folks at Goldman Sachs should, in theory, be thrilled. After all, Trump is filling his administration with the bank’s alumni. But now Goldman Sachs has come out with a dour report dampening expectations of a Trump-inspired economic boom.

When Trump won the presidency, Wall Street was overjoyed. The thinking was that he would give them big tax cuts, deregulation, and infrastructure spending. This would set the stage for economic liftoff. But this optimism was predicated on the theory that Trump was just kidding about the immigration and trade policies that Wall Street doesn’t like.

The grim conclusion that Goldman Sachs’s economists have reached could be summed up as: “Oh my God, Trump actually believes the things he says. He’s really going to clamp down on immigration and re-write trade rules along protectionists lines.” As the report actually says, “Some of the recent administrative actions by the Trump Administration serve as a reminder that the president is likely to follow through on campaign promises on trade and immigration, some of which could be disruptive for financial markets and the real economy.”

In other words: This clown in the White House is for real and our fantasies that he’d govern like a conventional Republican were folly.

In the report, anxiety about Trump’s policies is coupled with a realization that, despite unified government, gridlock persists in Washington because the Republicans can’t agree on basic policy and the two parties are becoming even more polarized. Don’t bet your farm on the expected Trump boom.
Jeet Heer
Goldman Sachs' runup has been responsible for 25% of the market rise since election day. The Goldman Showers.

Adder 02-06-2017 04:10 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505568)
Umm, you see it going away?
No, but that's hardly a defense of the EC.

Quote:
Plus, name one country which really on popular vote. Parliament system do basically what we do don't they?
I'm pretty sure one person, one vote is the rule everywhere else and I'm not aware of anywhere that weights votes differently by region.

But presumably you mean that the executive in a parliamentary system is chosen according to which party wins the most seats. We don't do that.

Pretty Little Flower 02-06-2017 04:25 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 505553)
You know what your problem is? You think people on this board, in the media, at your local cocktail parties, where-the-fuck-ever don't understand why people voted for Trump and you think you do. You cite this article like it proves something. What you don't get is that this is not a difficult argument to understand. We have considered it and rejected it. Just because it's gospel to you doesn't mean it is correct.

Hell, there are surely many reasons why Trump was elected, some of which are outlined in this article. I think everyone here has discussed a multitude of reasons of why that asshole won while losing the popular vote. But it is high fucking comedy that you keep repeating yourself on this "The coastal elites just don't get it" theory while sitting back and looking at anyone who disagrees like they can't see the truth. It's a joke.

And the funniest thing is you posting this article as unassailable support for your simple fucking position when you constantly reject any article anyone else posts in support of theirs with wave of your hand and a "you can find support for any position on the internet" snide comment.

Nothing you've said on any of this shit is convincing. You have no idea what you're talking about. You're not fooling anyone.

TM
Dude, I'm not sure if you realize what just happened, but Sebastian got you to agree that you are clueless. You agreed to it. Ha! You got played, sucker.

I'm feeling a little latin funk/soul/boogaloo today. The Daily Dose is Ray Barretto with "New York Soul."

"Ray, que pasa?" "Oh, everything is everything, baby."

Yup.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tGLELUSi2c

Hank Chinaski 02-06-2017 04:26 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 505575)

But presumably you mean that the executive in a parliamentary system is chosen according to which party wins the most seats. We don't do that.
So let's say Party X wins a seat in London by 90%, party Y wins one in the country by 51%. Equal votes go to the Executive choice, yet the popular vote is quite slanted. I didn't say "we do that," I said we basically do the same.

sebastian_dangerfield 02-06-2017 05:10 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505577)
So let's say Party X wins a seat in London by 90%, party Y wins one in the country by 51%. Equal votes go to the Executive choice, yet the popular vote is quite slanted. I didn't say "we do that," I said we basically do the same.
Right wing firebrand Chris Hedges, peddling false equivalence: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W4wlc1XK3H0

He's opening for Milo this summer.

sebastian_dangerfield 02-06-2017 05:14 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
This one's particularly pointed on the issue of why a lot of people like us are uniquely incensed by Trump: http://m.truthdig.com/report/item/con_vs_con_20160619

sebastian_dangerfield 02-06-2017 05:22 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 505552)
Enough of your empty-headed bullshit. I don't critique your inconsistency. I question your complete lack of any foundation whatsoever. You shift back and forth on whatever whim you're riding that day with this bullshit neutral outsider watching-the-world-burn poser image that you don't understand everyone sees right through. Inside baseball aspects. Fuck outta here with that.

TM
Sees right through to what? You yourself stated elsewhere: I don't have a side. That's my whole argument. Neither side was worth taking.

I'd like to have had a side. I had one with Kerry v. Bush (it was Kerry), but I haven't had much of one since. That's my fault? That's a pose? You're being silly.

ThurgreedMarshall 02-06-2017 05:32 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 505589)
Sees right through to what? You yourself stated elsewhere: I don't have a side. That's my whole argument. Neither side was worth taking.

I'd like to have had a side. I had one with Kerry v. Bush (it was Kerry), but I haven't had much of one since. That's my fault? That's a pose? You're being silly.
Right.

TM

sebastian_dangerfield 02-06-2017 05:38 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 505590)
Right.

TM
Oh, I see what's going on here. You think I'm a Trump supporter.

You're not that pathetic, are you? If that's all you've got, concede.

ETA: I've never seen a point, particularly a strongly felt or indignantly made one, I couldn't help but attempt to destabilize. The reflexive desire to poke a hole in the consensus is too strong to resist.

ThurgreedMarshall 02-06-2017 05:50 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 505591)
Oh, I see what's going on here. You think I'm a Trump supporter.
Nope. Clearly you do not see what is going on here.

TM

Adder 02-06-2017 05:57 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505577)
So let's say Party X wins a seat in London by 90%, party Y wins one in the country by 51%. Equal votes go to the Executive choice, yet the popular vote is quite slanted. I didn't say "we do that," I said we basically do the same.
No, it's not basically the same as even at the level of "seats" we give the rural candidate two votes that aren't justified by his district's population.

sebastian_dangerfield 02-06-2017 05:57 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505573)
But this:
Goldman Sachs is now worried that Donald Trump was being serious this whole time.The folks at Goldman Sachs should, in theory, be thrilled. After all, Trump is filling his administration with the bank’s alumni. But now Goldman Sachs has come out with a dour report dampening expectations of a Trump-inspired economic boom.

When Trump won the presidency, Wall Street was overjoyed. The thinking was that he would give them big tax cuts, deregulation, and infrastructure spending. This would set the stage for economic liftoff. But this optimism was predicated on the theory that Trump was just kidding about the immigration and trade policies that Wall Street doesn’t like.

The grim conclusion that Goldman Sachs’s economists have reached could be summed up as: “Oh my God, Trump actually believes the things he says. He’s really going to clamp down on immigration and re-write trade rules along protectionists lines.” As the report actually says, “Some of the recent administrative actions by the Trump Administration serve as a reminder that the president is likely to follow through on campaign promises on trade and immigration, some of which could be disruptive for financial markets and the real economy.”

In other words: This clown in the White House is for real and our fantasies that he’d govern like a conventional Republican were folly.

In the report, anxiety about Trump’s policies is coupled with a realization that, despite unified government, gridlock persists in Washington because the Republicans can’t agree on basic policy and the two parties are becoming even more polarized. Don’t bet your farm on the expected Trump boom.
Jeet Heer
I think he's just trying to knock out all of his promises on paper early, so he can move along to the profiteering with appropriate political cover as soon as possible.

They're just orders. "So called" judges will invalidate a bunch anyway, soon after the base is done following the stories. Credit for promises technically made. Hell, he'll probably undo a bunch of them quietly when they become problematic.

sebastian_dangerfield 02-06-2017 05:59 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 505592)
Nope. Clearly you do not see what is going on here.

TM
I'm trolling in an echo chamber?

ETA: Refute Hedges. I'd find that amusing.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-06-2017 06:42 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 505589)
You yourself stated elsewhere: I don't have a side. That's my whole argument.
If you keep choosing to stake out the center, you might as well have a side -- it's saying that you make up your mind on the basis of what other people think, but without actually caring about anything except how you are perceived.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-06-2017 06:44 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 505594)
I think he's just trying to knock out all of his promises on paper early, so he can move along to the profiteering with appropriate political cover as soon as possible.

They're just orders. "So called" judges will invalidate a bunch anyway, soon after the base is done following the stories. Credit for promises technically made. Hell, he'll probably undo a bunch of them quietly when they become problematic.
You and I seem to have very different understandings of how the man's mind works. You seem to think he's a conventional politician. I'm more with Josh on this.

Hank Chinaski 02-06-2017 07:28 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 505593)
No, it's not basically the same as even at the level of "seats" we give the rural candidate two votes that aren't justified by his district's population.
Exactly. It isn't mathematically precise, but very very close to it.

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 02-06-2017 07:47 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505577)
So let's say Party X wins a seat in London by 90%, party Y wins one in the country by 51%. Equal votes go to the Executive choice, yet the popular vote is quite slanted. I didn't say "we do that," I said we basically do the same.
Because I am helpful, there are many countries that elect a head of state by direct election.

But, point made, many states do not, and almost all indirect elections will have some form of distortion between the popular vote and whatever vote counts.

Hank Chinaski 02-06-2017 10:09 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy (Post 505599)
Because I am helpful, there are many countries that elect a head of state by direct election.

But, point made, many states do not, and almost all indirect elections will have some form of distortion between the popular vote and whatever vote counts.
Your link seems to require searching by country. I'm short for Commish of PTO. Can't be caught searching such stuff. Adder, would you research?

sebastian_dangerfield 02-06-2017 11:09 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505596)
If you keep choosing to stake out the center, you might as well have a side -- it's saying that you make up your mind on the basis of what other people think, but without actually caring about anything except how you are perceived.
"Neither" isn't the center. It's not making up your mind, but opting out.

But it's not stance without principle. As Hedges notes, if all the system offers is different varieties of corruption, hitting "none of the above" sends a message. The parties are sclerotic, and entirely out of touch, but they got the message this year: Offer More of the Same, and you'll get the mother of all protest candidates.

I think it was Mencken who said every decent man has to hoist the black flag and act as a pirate now and again. If Trump's the near death drunk our system needs to get sober, indulgence of his debauched administration will have served a significant purpose.

Personally, I believe our problems are beyond a political fix, for all of the reasons Hedges eloquently explains. You've read War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. He applies the same lucidity in Empire of Delusion. Read that and tell me he hasn't perfectly described this country. Perhaps only something as volcanic as the forecasted Trumpocalypse will shake us to serious policy change.

More of the same was going to be fine for people like us. But in case you hadn't noticed, I'm guessing all of the households on this board are in the top 10%. Our perceptions are the rose colored opinions of courtiers. Or as Hedges would more aggressively note, the useful idiot servants and creators of intellectual cover for corporatist masters.

No one misses the irony that some of the loudest liberals we know speak from gilded perches funded by corporations working against many of the progressive policy planks they profess to hold dear. Handing out hypocrite citations to the professional liberal set is like passing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.

Hank Chinaski 02-06-2017 11:38 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505596)
If you keep choosing to stake out the center, you might as well have a side -- it's saying that you make up your mind on the basis of what other people think, but without actually caring about anything except how you are perceived.
Yet the middle, as in people who don't buy into either party whole heartedly, is, I think thinking, but whatever. You lot are the thinkers, with accepting the dogma. I can't tell you how ill it made me the last weeks of the campaign, when I seemed the only voice saying " don't vote third party, this is a toss up," and then the meme started of "if you say hil is a poor candidate you are sexist." My prayer is the dems dig theirs heads out of their asses and realize how this perfect storm happened.

Hank Chinaski 02-06-2017 11:46 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 505601)
"Neither" isn't the center. It's not making up your mind, but opting out.

But it's not stance without principle. As Hedges notes, if all the system offers is different varieties of corruption, hitting "none of the above" sends a message. The parties are sclerotic, and entirely out of touch, but they got the message this year: Offer More of the Same, and you'll get the mother of all protest candidates.

I think it was Mencken who said every decent man has to hoist the black flag and act as a pirate now and again. If Trump's the near death drunk our system needs to get sober, indulgence of his debauched administration will have served a significant purpose.

Personally, I believe our problems are beyond a political fix, for all of the reasons Hedges eloquently explains. You've read War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning. He applies the same lucidity in Empire of Delusion. Read that and tell me he hasn't perfectly described this country. Perhaps only something as volcanic as the forecasted Trumpocalypse will shake us to serious policy change.

More of the same was going to be fine for people like us. But in case you hadn't noticed, I'm guessing all of the households on this board are in the top 10%. Our perceptions are the rose colored opinions of courtiers. Or as Hedges would more aggressively note, the useful idiot servants and creators of intellectual cover for corporatist masters.

No one misses the irony that some of the loudest liberals we know speak from gilded perches funded by corporations working against many of the progressive policy planks they profess to hold dear. Handing out hypocrite citations to the professional liberal set is like passing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500.
Your nonsense ignores the math. Hil lost because she got fewer votes than President Obama, and third party candidates got a 500% increase. You want to analyze why we have Trump? Look to the Johnson/Stein voters, not the Trump voters.

sebastian_dangerfield 02-06-2017 11:59 PM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505603)
Your nonsense ignores the math. Hil lost because she got fewer votes than President Obama, and third party candidates got a 500% increase. You want to analyze why we have Trump? Look to the Johnson/Stein voters, not the Trump voters.
Where in that text am I assessing why Hillary lost? I'm discussing why people voted for third party candidates. I think I'm kind of supporting your point.

However, she lost for a lot more reasons than what you cite. It can't be boiled down to one thing. That's the argument we've been having for months now.

Tyrone Slothrop 02-07-2017 01:43 AM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505602)
Yet the middle, as in people who don't buy into either party whole heartedly, is, I think thinking, but whatever.
If you think I'm criticizing anyone who doesn't fully subscribe to either party, you're not hearing me.

Hank Chinaski 02-07-2017 01:48 AM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 505605)
If you think I'm criticizing anyone who doesn't fully subscribe to either party, you're not hearing me.
I'm doing my best over here.

Adder 02-07-2017 10:41 AM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505598)
Exactly. It isn't mathematically precise, but very very close to it.
Giving Wyoming, for example, three times it's proportional share is not at all close to it.

Adder 02-07-2017 10:46 AM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505603)
Your nonsense ignores the math. Hil lost because she got fewer votes than President Obama, and third party candidates got a 500% increase. You want to analyze why we have Trump? Look to the Johnson/Stein voters, not the Trump voters.
No, Hank, it's about the 2% fewer prime age people participating in the labor force. Clearly.

The Dem "establishment" (for lack of a better term) completely underestimated (1) just how much scorn there would be for Hillary from the progressive wing of the party, who I personally thought would get out to vote for the first woman over a racists lunatic (or any R), and (2) just how powerful mysogny is. Those to things drove the phenomena that left votes the Dems could have gotten at home.

Sebby's thing mattered too, but there's little the Dems can really offer to get those people on board.

Adder 02-07-2017 10:47 AM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 505604)
However, she lost for a lot more reasons than what you cite. It can't be boiled down to one thing. That's the argument we've been having for months now.
Says the only person who has insisted it was really one thing...

ThurgreedMarshall 02-07-2017 10:50 AM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 505602)
Yet the middle, as in people who don't buy into either party whole heartedly, is, I think thinking, but whatever. You lot are the thinkers, with accepting the dogma. I can't tell you how ill it made me the last weeks of the campaign, when I seemed the only voice saying " don't vote third party, this is a toss up," and then the meme started of "if you say hil is a poor candidate you are sexist." My prayer is the dems dig theirs heads out of their asses and realize how this perfect storm happened.
Shirley, you can't be serious.

Stop acting like you're the only one yelling at idiots who were voting third party.

And stop trying to impute a small group of people's opinions to everyone voting on the left. It's so fucking ridiculous.

This constant complaint about the left calling everyone racist and sexist such that it turns good people to vote for an actual racist, sexist moron is stupid. There isn't a person in this country whose vote Hillary or Obama would have secured but for liberals labeling them racist or sexist for thinking about voting against them. It's just another way for people on the right to either feel sorry for themselves or justify voting for someone like Trump.

TM

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy 02-07-2017 11:08 AM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder (Post 505608)
No, Hank, it's about the 2% fewer prime age people participating in the labor force. Clearly.

The Dem "establishment" (for lack of a better term) completely underestimated (1) just how much scorn there would be for Hillary from the progressive wing of the party, who I personally thought would get out to vote for the first woman over a racists lunatic (or any R), and (2) just how powerful mysogny is. Those to things drove the phenomena that left votes the Dems could have gotten at home.

Sebby's thing mattered too, but there's little the Dems can really offer to get those people on board.
Part of the problem is a traditional problem: there is always a disconnect between campaign/party HQ and the grassroots. I think it was worse in this case for a bunch of reasons: (1) Under Obama and Wasserman-Shultz, the Party had focused on their core strength: a dynamic, very appealing President who could reach people directly and had not done as much grassroots and state based work as they should have - by the general, the party was on the sidelines; (2) Everyone who knows Hillary at HQ has trouble understanding the complaints about her because they know they are all fundamentally untrue; the degree to which Bernie supporters, for example, came to share a characterization of her similar to that pushed by Issa and Gingrich, still shocks them, and they thus dismissed what they couldn't understand; (3) Hillary herself is a wonk not a candidate by nature, and didn't play to her strength; in the debates, she didn't engage him in wonky discussion and show how shallow he was, but instead pushed him on zingers and tried to demonstrate his instability...

I can go on. But the reason for the shock of the election wasn't just that Johnson voters were idiots (though many are). It was also that a fairly traditional disconnect was aggravated and both Hill's campaign and the party were out of touch with that.

We need a lot of local activity to build a base to make sure that doesn't happen next time.

Hank Chinaski 02-07-2017 11:18 AM
Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall (Post 505610)
Shirley, you can't be serious.

Stop acting like you're the only one yelling at idiots who were voting third party.

And stop trying to impute a small group of people's opinions to everyone voting on the left. It's so fucking ridiculous.
I meant more on FB, where I seemed to be forever reading Michigan people explaining how there was a real chance Johnson can get to 10% (or whatever the line was) and then things will be pretty! Here I think we all posted along our own takes to get our 1 undecided voter to start thinking straight. We failed, but we tried.

Quote:
This constant complaint about the left calling everyone racist and sexist such that it turns good people to vote for an actual racist, sexist moron is stupid. There isn't a person in this country whose vote Hillary or Obama would have secured but for liberals labeling them racist or sexist for thinking about voting against them. It's just another way for people on the right to either feel sorry for themselves or justify voting for someone like Trump.

TM
I agree with you on people pushed to Trump. Disagree on people who ended up with a 3rd party vote. If em knew in em's heart Hillary was not good, and then em read 10 memes about how that makes you sexist, I can see it moving em to Johnson.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:59 PM.
Page 94 of 126 « First 44849293 94 9596104 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com