Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
@Ambar: That's how Russia's modern propaganda strategy works; fund both left wing and right wing groups that are divisive and ideally militant, favoring the groups that are out of power. Now that the GOP is in power, they're likely switching gears towards favoring the democrats. I recall you posting an article about it in relation to Steve Bannon aping it a while ago.
My point is not that they are specifically funding groups like BLM, just that it wouldn't surprise me if they are providing a small amount of money under the table to try and encourage radicalization; they're obviously not the primary financiers, but neither were they the primary financier of Trump's campaign or the alt-right in general.
edited 3rd Apr '17 2:23:12 PM by CaptainCapsase
x4 I must agree with this. If we're going to call for sources on the "Clinton is corrupt" stuff, then I'd like the same for "the Justice Democrats are being funded by the Russians". Otherwise, I see no reason to claim that the latter is any less bullshit than the form.
edited 3rd Apr '17 2:18:51 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!To us he looks awkward. To him, he looks the way everyone should look. It's what you get when you've lived your entire life in an echo chamber. This is why while I have no issues with participation trophies and the like, we still need the assholes out there who bitch about how they water down competition. It keeps the Special Snowflake Syndrome from devolving completely into what Trump lives on a daily basis. Yes, everyone is a combination of factors that doesn't match every single other person on the planet (can't call it unique. Almost everyone has doubles, period. You just rarely meet them because there are over 7 billion other people to hide them.) but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be altering and fixing up the bad parts of that combination. Which is something Trump never had to do because he rarely met people with any sort of power over him that actually wanted to help him improve.
Because from you quoted, he said the working class and your mind jumped to only the white working class.
You know most minorities are part of the working class, right?
And he's not wrong except he was way too high of a view of Trump voters who he seems to see as misguided which I'm sure most are but there's definitely a heavily racist core to that party.
But I also think he's trying to appeal to Trump voters to switch to his side so he's trying to be nice to them.
I just don't see the point.
Every time the Democrats put up a "Centrist" candidate who was charismatic, they win.
Every time they put up a far-left/policy wonk, they lose.
This isn't exactly rocket science of why the party is sketchy about going hard progressive.
Maybe they'll need a charismatic progressive to win. Who knows.
But I can understand why the moderate Democrats would be internally telling the progressive wing to piss off.
They haven't proven they can win.
![]()
Except that every hot take fawning over his latest sayings deliberately minimises the existence of working class people who aren't white.
Economic anxiety is apparently a whites only thing. And heaven forfend any concerns that you might be on the wrong end of a pogrom...
Oh, they can win, it's just that the wins tend to be in focus group like environments. The question of how the ideas these progressives claim to be for are to be sold to the public at large has never been answered here.
edited 3rd Apr '17 2:24:18 PM by Krieger22
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot@AmbarSonofDeshar
The attacks on Clinton from the left were completely different from the attacks coming from the right. For example, I doubt many right-wingers were complaining about Clinton's support for Bill's welfare reform or the war in Iraq.
![]()
This is a democracy. Unless you intend to change that, those people still have votes, and will probably use them; there's no sense in burning bridges towards a voting bloc under any circumstances with rhetoric, even if you intend to do just that in the process of governing.
edited 3rd Apr '17 2:27:14 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
There was no reason to wonder why the right didn't like HRC. But the propaganda campaign against her from the right was intentionally designed to provoke anger from left-wing voters as well. Steve Bannon is a master operator, and many of us done got took. And let's not talk about Stein and her Russia boner.
It's funny how many people in the Sanders wing keep talking about how we need to accommodate the anxieties of a bunch of racists. Sure, they get votes. But that doesn't mean that Democrats should attempt to win elections with them.
Trump didn't win because he got more votes. Clinton lost because she got fewer votes, and an awful lot of those were from the unicorn brigade.
edited 3rd Apr '17 2:29:25 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Burning bridges? These people burnt the bridge the minute the Civil Rights Act was passed and never looked back.
Race and people's voting patterns are so intricately linked, it'd be like trying to remove Hydrogen from a H 2 O Molecule and still expecting to drink water.
New Survey coming this weekend!To be fair, they ARE Americans too. They have a vote. Not defending their ideals, but probably the only thing keeping them from going full-on death cult, grabbing guns, and hailing Christ the Destroyer is the fact that whenever a President runs out of terms, the other party gets one in. Give it a few decades of these people not getting their votes counted, they probably would go terrorist.
"My daddy says when he was a kid, we had one of OUR kind in office. I dun never seen it, but it's about time we had one. If they won't give us one, we'll just MAKE it happen. Darlene, where's my fuckin' gun?"
They actually were complaining about the war in Iraq. All the way up to Trump himself, they were. That was one of Trump's attack angles: in 2002 as a senator, Hillary voted in favor of the war. Trump liked to bring that up so he could counter it by saying that he, Donald Trump, always knew that Iraq was a mistake.
It was a lie easily disproven by video of him endorsing the war in 2002, but that's how his campaign rolled: make shit up, revise history, and get away with it because Republican voters don't fact-check.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Please. The hard-right and lunatic left through around a litany of near identical BS about Clinton. The corruption meme started on the right and was picked up on by the Internet left. The "she'll go to war with Russia" nonsense started on the right and was picked up on by the Internet left—including some people who have posted in this thread. The notion that Russia is a friend who wouldn't interfere with this election started on the right, and has been picked up by the Internet left, who are now trying to dismiss Putin's meddling as, in your own words, a "conspiracy theory".
The claim that Clinton is a "warmonger" started on the right and was picked up by the Internet left (and quoted at us repeatedly here, I might note). The right dug up all their greatest hits (Whitewater, Vince Foster, "she was mean to Monica") and put them back up on the 'net; soon enough, the Internet left was using those claims to fuel the corruption narrative. All that horseshit about her "personally funding child soldiers" started on the right and was picked up on the by Internet left (who don't seem to care about one of their own supporting Assad, but that's another story).
The overarching narrative of Clinton the dishonest, corrupt warhawk was an invention of the hard-right in the 90s. And as soon as she was up against the Progressive Messiah (TM) the Internet left started regurgitating that narrative and twisting every fact—and every "alternative fact"—they had until it fit that narrative.
This. Christ almighty, this. The anger of the True Progressives (TM) is so very, very selective as to be outright baffling. They'll make up any story they can about Clinton, but when Sanders or Stein or Gabbard or whoever does all the things they accuse her of doing it's somehow worthy of ignorance. I don't know if it's sexism or, given their willingness to throw in with Stein and Gabbard, just another iteration of messianic politics—when the Progressive Messiah and his Disciples do it, it's acceptable, when others do, it is not.
edited 3rd Apr '17 2:36:09 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
![]()
![]()
No, but considering that most of the people who are racist in this country are old Baby Boomers who are too set in their ways to change, and currently are the largest Generation in the USA (with the Milennials a close No. 2), educating them on why they're wrong isn't going to happen. You could potentially change someone like Milo Yiannoppolis through Education, but Granny doesn't need to be taught anything by snot nosed snow flakes when she's lived a wonderful life and her racism didn't hurt her at all.
The sad truth is, until the Baby Boomer Generation dies off to a considerable degree, there's only 3 ways to deal with them: Appeal to their Economic Needs, Appeal to their Racism, or both. Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama follow part A, and Trump did Part C. And criticizing them, at least right now, will only lead to losing Elections in key States that are still overwhelmingly Baby Boomer territory, which is why Hillary barely lost.
edited 3rd Apr '17 2:40:19 PM by DingoWalley1
Sanders is America's most highly regarded politician atm.
And if you want to believe Tom Perez, the head of the DNC, which I don't, he's running things by Bernie to get his approval.
Gonna point out the hypocrisy right here.
He joins it when he ran, he's changing atm and he's rejoining it after his term as an independent senator is dome.
-sighs-
This isn't a unicorn bridage thing. You have to enthuse people to vote. Demographics are on our side and yet we're still losing so obviously the Democratic Party has been doing something wrong this past decade.
[[quoteblck]]Sanders' insistence on remaining an Independent should realistically cut him off from having any say in how things work in the Democratic Party.
I've told you this before. He switched back to Independent because that what Vermont voted for him as. He's planning to rejoin the Democratic Party after his term.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Which is precisely my point; they have votes, and if through minor and inconsequential modifications of your rhetoric you can achieve a net gain in votes, it's foolish not to do so, especially when it's trivial to simply go back on your word once in office.
edited 3rd Apr '17 2:35:02 PM by CaptainCapsase
And I also find it hilarious that Bernie is willing to compromise and court working class whites and outright said that it's okay for some Democrats to NOT be Pro-Choice in order to win, but when Hillary tried to appeal to the very few decent Republican voters left, his wing crucified her for seemingly going to the "right" to court them (which was completely false.)
New Survey coming this weekend!![]()
Continuing to play this particular blame game will eventually lead to the left deciding there's no other option but to play hardball (which is what groups like the justice democrats are intent on doing). That's something I think we'd all rather avoid, though I'm prepared to go down that road if the party refuses to meaningfully change.
You know what though? Hypocrisy pays in politics.
edited 3rd Apr '17 2:40:25 PM by CaptainCapsase

@Tactical Fox
There isn't a reason you should like him. Since the election he's been trying to claim that he told us so, while pretending to a relevance he does not have. In doing so he continues to keep the wounds in the Democratic Party open, while "inspiring" a new generation of Unicorn Brigaders to keep on hoping that if they just pick the right messiah they'll get everything they ever wanted without trying. He's demanding a party that he's never had the guts to actually join, change in order to meet his personal beliefs about what they should be.
Which really, is just the Unicorn Brigade mentality personified. "You have to earn my vote". No. You have to demonstrate that there's a reason to listen to you, and the only way you can do that is by voting. Sanders' insistence on remaining an Independent should realistically cut him off from having any say in how things work in the Democratic Party.