Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
How many heads will explode...
Comments
-
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.
