Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
How many heads will explode...
Comments
-
Creep gets itcreepycoug said:
Bullshit. That was garbage political anal isis.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
You are saying that Obama and Hillary weren't liberal enuff. Kriminy.
Wrong.
They were too fucking liberal. Obama forced the issue with healthcare, which was bound to be controversial and alienating and full of problems.
And the left was too focused on bathrooms, gay rights and other fringy social issues that don't speak to the mind of the working class Democrat, and not enuff time on jobs, evil corporatations not paying their faire share of taxes and moving jobs oversees, the military, God and American interests in general. Watch the Campaign sometime. There are some good lessons in that movie. You literally have to say "Support Our Troops" every five minutes to court the average American dipshit vote. Hillary chose instead to insult them with "deplorables" and talk over their heads. Plus, she's just not fucking relatable ... at. all.
You make it sound like not enough people in SoHo came out to cast their Dem vote. Bullshit. The problem was that the blue collar guy in the Ohio River Valley who comes from a long line of Democratic populists came out and voted, but switched parties because of the monumentally bad campaign the Dems ran. It's that simple.
You had better hope that they drop the guns bit before the next election. Guns will be the next bathroom issue to bury the Dems.
When will the lesson be learned? There are legions of fucking life-long democrats who didn't attend elite colleges, who don't come from money and who don't live in Manhattan or San Francisco. THOSE are the people the D party need to get back on board.
They won't. -
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe". -
Reagan Democrats gonna Reagan Democrat.creepycoug said:
Bullshit. That was garbage political anal isis.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
You are saying that Obama and Hillary weren't liberal enuff. Kriminy.
Wrong.
They were too fucking liberal. Obama forced the issue with healthcare, which was bound to be controversial and alienating and full of problems.
And the left was too focused on bathrooms, gay rights and other fringy social issues that don't speak to the mind of the working class Democrat, and not enuff time on jobs, evil corporatations not paying their faire share of taxes and moving jobs oversees, the military, God and American interests in general. Watch the Campaign sometime. There are some good lessons in that movie. You literally have to say "Support Our Troops" every five minutes to court the average American dipshit vote. Hillary chose instead to insult them with "deplorables" and talk over their heads. Plus, she's just not fucking relatable ... at. all.
You make it sound like not enough people in SoHo came out to cast their Dem vote. Bullshit. The problem was that the blue collar guy in the Ohio River Valley who comes from a long line of Democratic populists came out and voted, but switched parties because of the monumentally bad campaign the Dems ran. It's that simple.
You had better hope that they drop the guns bit before the next election. Guns will be the next bathroom issue to bury the Dems.
When will the lesson be learned? There are legions of fucking life-long democrats who didn't attend elite colleges, who don't come from money and who don't live in Manhattan or San Francisco. THOSE are the people the D party need to get back on board.
They won't.
Tuff logging camp liberal in 2020!!! Now more than ever!!
-
This.creepycoug said:
Bullshit. That was garbage political anal isis.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
You are saying that Obama and Hillary weren't liberal enuff. Kriminy.
Wrong.
They were too fucking liberal. Obama forced the issue with healthcare, which was bound to be controversial and alienating and full of problems.
And the left was too focused on bathrooms, gay rights and other fringy social issues that don't speak to the mind of the working class Democrat, and not enuff time on jobs, evil corporatations not paying their faire share of taxes and moving jobs oversees, the military, God and American interests in general. Watch the Campaign sometime. There are some good lessons in that movie. You literally have to say "Support Our Troops" every five minutes to court the average American dipshit vote. Hillary chose instead to insult them with "deplorables" and talk over their heads. Plus, she's just not fucking relatable ... at. all.
You make it sound like not enough people in SoHo came out to cast their Dem vote. Bullshit. The problem was that the blue collar guy in the Ohio River Valley who comes from a long line of Democratic populists came out and voted, but switched parties because of the monumentally bad campaign the Dems ran. It's that simple.
You had better hope that they drop the guns bit before the next election. Guns will be the next bathroom issue to bury the Dems.
When will the lesson be learned? There are legions of fucking life-long democrats who didn't attend elite colleges, who don't come from money and who don't live in Manhattan or San Francisco. THOSE are the people the D party need to get back on board.
They won't.
The Democrats forgot they were supposed to be for the working class stiff. Their vote said "fuck me? No, fuck you."
This is one of the rare times I completely agree with Michael Moore. He had a great rant on this point.
-
Any 55ish year old white male that is articulate will win in a landslide just like they would have in the last election.
It's like the Dems are losing right now on purpose while the Boomers are still barely hanging on to completely take over in 10 years, which is going to happen regardless. -
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.HardlyClothed said:
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on. -
creepycoug said:
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.HardlyClothed said:
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on. -
I don't think Romney will switch parties.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
They'll roll out Pocahontas and Inslee.
Dumb and dumber.
-
Of course she and the party blew it. They sill believed in the failed “third way” centrism and they projected elitism. That’s what I’ve been saying. That is the reason the democratic party is loathed from the left and why they didn’t turn out in 2016.creepycoug said:
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.HardlyClothed said:
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
You have the right premise that the establishment Dems and the party machine are discredited failures. Your problem is that you can’t see that that was the argument of the progressive base who wanted to move the party away from neoliberalism and back towards working class populism. That’s the liberalism I’m talking about. Material concerns. Not the stupid bathroom shit.
-
Dems have, with a few scattered exceptions, gone all in for the transgendered are normal (not mentally ill), all people of color (except Asians) are massive victims of whitey leftist social issue platform and it got them smoked. Jethro who lost his job at the meat plant doesn't give a f about that stuff. Trump axed TPP within like 12 hours of being sworn in. Maybe it was in part a front but I'll give him credit for holding true to his word and driving elitist wine sippers like Cirrhosis up the wall, even if I'm not a yuge fan of his.
-
Crisped.HardlyClothed said:
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign slobbering over her ballzak.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe". -
Romney was running for Senate in Utah.PurpleThrobber said:
I don't think Romney will switch parties.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
They'll roll out Pocahontas and Inslee.
Dumb and dumber.
HTH -
POTFW and it isn't close. BAM!creepycoug said:
Bullshit. That was garbage political anal isis.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
You are saying that Obama and Hillary weren't liberal enuff. Kriminy.
Wrong.
They were too fucking liberal. Obama forced the issue with healthcare, which was bound to be controversial and alienating and full of problems.
And the left was too focused on bathrooms, gay rights and other fringy social issues that don't speak to the mind of the working class Democrat, and not enuff time on jobs, evil corporatations not paying their faire share of taxes and moving jobs oversees, the military, God and American interests in general. Watch the Campaign sometime. There are some good lessons in that movie. You literally have to say "Support Our Troops" every five minutes to court the average American dipshit vote. Hillary chose instead to insult them with "deplorables" and talk over their heads. Plus, she's just not fucking relatable ... at. all.
You make it sound like not enough people in SoHo came out to cast their Dem vote. Bullshit. The problem was that the blue collar guy in the Ohio River Valley who comes from a long line of Democratic populists came out and voted, but switched parties because of the monumentally bad campaign the Dems ran. It's that simple.
You had better hope that they drop the guns bit before the next election. Guns will be the next bathroom issue to bury the Dems.
When will the lesson be learned? There are legions of fucking life-long democrats who didn't attend elite colleges, who don't come from money and who don't live in Manhattan or San Francisco. THOSE are the people the D party need to get back on board.
They won't. -
This is correct.GrundleStiltzkin said:creepycoug said:
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.HardlyClothed said:
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost. -
Sure.gif.2001400ex said:
Romney was running for Senate in Utah.PurpleThrobber said:
I don't think Romney will switch parties.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
They'll roll out Pocahontas and Inslee.
Dumb and dumber.
HTH
That's not his end game.
Point being (aside from the one on the top of your head) - Romney's a moderate that would roll as a Democrat. But the Dems are too hung up strutting their intellectual elitism to actually run someone with a chance to win.
-
That I can follow. Populism and whatever flavor of socialism share a kindred desire to take other people's shit. Democrats blew and are blowing the chance to co-opt that voting bloc.HardlyClothed said:
Of course she and the party blew it. They sill believed in the failed “third way” centrism and they projected elitism. That’s what I’ve been saying. That is the reason the democratic party is loathed from the left and why they didn’t turn out in 2016.creepycoug said:
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.HardlyClothed said:
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
You have the right premise that the establishment Dems and the party machine are discredited failures. Your problem is that you can’t see that that was the argument of the progressive base who wanted to move the party away from neoliberalism and back towards working class populism. That’s the liberalism I’m talking about. Material concerns. Not the stupid bathroom shit. -
I truly curious your view of increasingly unfettered capitalism.HardlyClothed said:
This is correct.GrundleStiltzkin said:creepycoug said:
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.HardlyClothed said:
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost. -
I don't know if he would roll as a Democrat but he isn't conservative enough for Utah.PurpleThrobber said:
Sure.gif.2001400ex said:
Romney was running for Senate in Utah.PurpleThrobber said:
I don't think Romney will switch parties.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
They'll roll out Pocahontas and Inslee.
Dumb and dumber.
HTH
That's not his end game.
Point being (aside from the one on the top of your head) - Romney's a moderate that would roll as a Democrat. But the Dems are too hung up strutting their intellectual elitism to actually run someone with a chance to win.
As a side point. I always wonder why a dude like Romney, who never has to work again and has access to many corporate boards to keep him engaged, wants to be a senator. -
I think Romney has that old-school patrician called-to-serve thing. Or daddy issues. Don't twist.2001400ex said:
I don't know if he would roll as a Democrat but he isn't conservative enough for Utah.PurpleThrobber said:
Sure.gif.2001400ex said:
Romney was running for Senate in Utah.PurpleThrobber said:
I don't think Romney will switch parties.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
They'll roll out Pocahontas and Inslee.
Dumb and dumber.
HTH
That's not his end game.
Point being (aside from the one on the top of your head) - Romney's a moderate that would roll as a Democrat. But the Dems are too hung up strutting their intellectual elitism to actually run someone with a chance to win.
As a side point. I always wonder why a dude like Romney, who never has to work again and has access to many corporate boards to keep him engaged, wants to be a senator. -
GrundleStiltzkin said:
I truly curious your view of increasingly unfettered capitalism.HardlyClothed said:
This is correct.GrundleStiltzkin said:creepycoug said:
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.HardlyClothed said:
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
Everyone knows unfettered goes best with nacho cheese.
-
In short summary since the 80’s: union busting, tax cuts for wealthy, increasing financialization of the economy where almost all profit is in the financial sector, massive corporate consolidation combined with increased political power, deindustrialization.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I truly curious your view of increasingly unfettered capitalism.HardlyClothed said:
This is correct.GrundleStiltzkin said:creepycoug said:
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.HardlyClothed said:
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
The culmination of this is that since the financial crisis in ‘08 over 95% of income growth has gone to 1% of the population. Whether you believe that constitutes a healthy society or not is up to you. -
Dude. You. Are. Presuming. Too. Much.HardlyClothed said:
This is correct.GrundleStiltzkin said:creepycoug said:
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.HardlyClothed said:
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
Do you REALLY think that moderate democrats are contemplating the implications of "unfettered capitalism" and musing about "neoliberalism"? Axe Sledog if he knows what those words mean, and you'll get an idea of who fs this is.
I suppose you think that Joe Lunchbox reads Das Kapital and Wealth of Nations on his smoke breaks.
And we haven't moved towards unfettered capitalism. Read a Dickens novel if you want to know what that really looks like.
Trump's policies most closely mirror classic Democratic populism ... the kind of shit that is popular with unions and blue collar, lower middle-class working stiffs. You know, protectionism, tarriffs, "America first" and all that shit. There is nothing unfettered about it, unless you're choosing to just focus on the tax cut. -
Of course I don’t think Joe Lunchbox has a nuanced understanding of the labor theory of value but he’s not stupid enough to see that his material interests have been damaged by both political parties for the last 30+ years.creepycoug said:
Dude. You. Are. Presuming. Too. Much.HardlyClothed said:
This is correct.GrundleStiltzkin said:creepycoug said:
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.HardlyClothed said:
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
Do you REALLY think that moderate democrats are contemplating the implications of "unfettered capitalism" and musing about "neoliberalism"? Axe Sledog if he knows what those words mean, and you'll get an idea of who fs this is.
I suppose you think that Joe Lunchbox reads Das Kapital and Wealth of Nations on his smoke breaks.
And we haven't moved towards unfettered capitalism. Read a Dickens novel if you want to know what that really looks like.
Trump's policies most closely mirror classic Democratic populism ... the kind of shit that is popular with unions and blue collar, lower middle-class working stiffs. You know, protectionism, tarriffs, "America first" and all that shit. There is nothing unfettered about it, unless you're choosing to just focus on the tax cut. -
Ok, I understand your point now.HardlyClothed said:
Of course she and the party blew it. They sill believed in the failed “third way” centrism and they projected elitism. That’s what I’ve been saying. That is the reason the democratic party is loathed from the left and why they didn’t turn out in 2016.creepycoug said:
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.HardlyClothed said:
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
You have the right premise that the establishment Dems and the party machine are discredited failures. Your problem is that you can’t see that that was the argument of the progressive base who wanted to move the party away from neoliberalism and back towards working class populism. That’s the liberalism I’m talking about. Material concerns. Not the stupid bathroom shit.
Yes, I agree. Any strategic move away from blue collar populism was a disaster. And Trump moved right in and grabbed it away from them. -
Yeah, I'm not smart enough to figure any of that out. I'm always in favor of tax cuts, or in order words, taking less money from the people who earn it. One can always send a larger check to the Treasury if one feels one's tax bill is too low.HardlyClothed said:
In short summary since the 80’s: union busting, tax cuts for wealthy, increasing financialization of the economy where almost all profit is in the financial sector, massive corporate consolidation combined with increased political power, deindustrialization.GrundleStiltzkin said:
I truly curious your view of increasingly unfettered capitalism.HardlyClothed said:
This is correct.GrundleStiltzkin said:creepycoug said:
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.HardlyClothed said:
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
The culmination of this is that since the financial crisis in ‘08 over 95% of income growth has gone to 1% of the population. Whether you believe that constitutes a healthy society or not is up to you.
During that same time period, the Federal Register has run between 65,000 and 80,000 pages annually. Eh, I was going to write someone about artificially created chincentives, but I lost interest.
Edit - what Creep said -
I had missed your intervening post. I gotcha.HardlyClothed said:
Of course I don’t think Joe Lunchbox has a nuanced understanding of the labor theory of value but he’s not stupid enough to see that his material interests have been damaged by both political parties for the last 30+ years.creepycoug said:
Dude. You. Are. Presuming. Too. Much.HardlyClothed said:
This is correct.GrundleStiltzkin said:creepycoug said:
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.HardlyClothed said:
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
Do you REALLY think that moderate democrats are contemplating the implications of "unfettered capitalism" and musing about "neoliberalism"? Axe Sledog if he knows what those words mean, and you'll get an idea of who fs this is.
I suppose you think that Joe Lunchbox reads Das Kapital and Wealth of Nations on his smoke breaks.
And we haven't moved towards unfettered capitalism. Read a Dickens novel if you want to know what that really looks like.
Trump's policies most closely mirror classic Democratic populism ... the kind of shit that is popular with unions and blue collar, lower middle-class working stiffs. You know, protectionism, tarriffs, "America first" and all that shit. There is nothing unfettered about it, unless you're choosing to just focus on the tax cut. -
C'mon creep. You're better than that.creepycoug said:
I had missed your chintervening post. I gotcha.HardlyClothed said:
Of course I don’t think Joe Lunchbox has a nuanced understanding of the labor theory of value but he’s not stupid enough to see that his material interests have been damaged by both political parties for the last 30+ years.creepycoug said:
Dude. You. Are. Presuming. Too. Much.HardlyClothed said:
This is correct.GrundleStiltzkin said:creepycoug said:
Ok man. I guess the rest of us missed it. Remember, it's not just the candidate ... it's what the candidate's party is doing.HardlyClothed said:
What the hell are you talking about? Hillary spent the entire campaign trying to reach out to moderate Republicans instead of making concessions the progressive base.creepycoug said:
Sort of. It had to do w/ policies in that Hillary ran a campaign on policies that ranged from marginally important to retarded.Pitchfork51 said:
Oh my God.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because the progressive base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shitty Republican health care reform and expanded our forever wars in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishment moderate who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.
A democrat from the left-wing of the party would have trounced Trump.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
They are gonna do it too.
They still don't fucking get it. It's insane.
Hillary losing and trump winning had fucking zero to do with her platform or policies.
She thought she could get elected with the Berkeley vote. And she almost did, until yet another bit of info "leaked" questioning her integrity. That was one thing Obama didn't have to carry ... nobody really believes the birthers - even Bannon calls that crowd "fringe".
If you don't remember bathrooms, deplorables, e-mail servers, gay marriage! and Obamacare, then I just can't help you.
Oh, I'm well aware that Hillary isn't nearly as liberal in real life as she pretends to be, but her public face is all about that other shit. Yeah, she was centrist relative to Bernie, who actually lets people call him a socialist w/o fighting back. Compared to him, I see your point.
You have a lot of work to do before you convince me that she lost because not enuff bleeding hearts turned out to vote. We all know that was reported, and likely played a part, but I'm pretty suspect about placing too much emphasis on precise statistics concerning things that "didn't happen." Know what I mean?
The Hillary and the entire party blew it. Just admit it and move on.
If you can’t put together how our political shift (in both parties) towards unfettered capitalism is and has been failing the majority of working class people since the 1980’s and the resulting failure of neoliberalism in the Democratic party then you don’t truly understand why Hillary lost.
Do you REALLY think that moderate democrats are contemplating the implications of "unfettered capitalism" and musing about "neoliberalism"? Axe Sledog if he knows what those words mean, and you'll get an idea of who fs this is.
I suppose you think that Joe Lunchbox reads Das Kapital and Wealth of Nations on his smoke breaks.
And we haven't moved towards unfettered capitalism. Read a Dickens novel if you want to know what that really looks like.
Trump's policies most closely mirror classic Democratic populism ... the kind of shit that is popular with unions and blue collar, lower middle-class working stiffs. You know, protectionism, tarriffs, "America first" and all that shit. There is nothing unfettered about it, unless you're choosing to just focus on the tax cut.
-
All fixed.HardlyClothed said:
This is garbage poltical analysis.Swaye said:
All the Dems have to do is run a moderate, just as you suggest. They will trot out Pocahontas or some other socialist and get drubbed. LRRPitchfork51 said:I can't see any way he doesn't.
I mean aside from the totally obvious democrat move which is run a decent moderate candidate.
Which there is about 0 chance of them doing.
Hillary lost because theprogressivecommunist base didn’t turn out for her.
The Dems lost hundreds of seats during the Obama years because he did shittyRepublicancommunist health care reform and expanded our forever wars by arming our enemies and creating ISIS in the Middle East.
Hillary was the center-left establishmentmoderatecommunist who pandered to “moderate” Republican voters instead of the liberal base, and it failed spectacularly.socialists.
Ademocratcommunist from theleftcommunist-wing of the party would have trounced Trump. -
I only hated the white half of Obama.2001400ex said:
A lot of people:topdawgnc said:Obama lost 100's of seats because hate motivates at the polls.
It is the same reason Trump will lose both houses.
1) hate that a black man was in office
2) believed he was a Muslim born in Kenya.
There's a lot of stupid voters. -
ybeSledog said:
I only hated the white half of Obama.2001400ex said:
A lot of people:topdawgnc said:Obama lost 100's of seats because hate motivates at the polls.
It is the same reason Trump will lose both houses.
1) hate that a black man was in office
2) believed he was a Muslim born in Kenya.
There's a lot of stupid voters.
