420chan now has a web-based IRC client available, right here
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Community Updates

420chan now supports HTTPS! If you find any issues, you may report them in this thread
Democrats Pick Perez, Set To Lose On Purpose All Over Again by Hannah Gizzlelock - Sun, 26 Feb 2017 12:40:16 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.388457 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1488130816178.jpg -(56885B / 55.55KB, 750x663) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 56885
http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Establishment-Pick-Tom-Perez-Elected-DNC-Chair-20170225-0006.html
>Former Labor Secretary Tom Perez was elected as the chair of the Democratic National Committee, DNC, on Saturday, defeating Rep. Keith Ellison.
>The son of Dominican immigrants is seen by many as an establishment pick. Receiving support from former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, Perez supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, and believes the 2016 Democratic Primary was not rigged against Sen. Bernie Sanders.
>Perez, who was born and raised in Buffalo, New York, was seen as the preferred choice for Obama and former Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
>Ellison, the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, was backed by progressives within the party, including Sanders and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren.
>Prior to Perez's election, members voted to reject a measure that would have restored a ban on corporate lobbyists donating to the party. A number of speakers were present at the vote, urging the party to unify.

So after suffering the biggest and most embarrassing electoral defeat in American history - specifically because they spat all over their progressive wing to embrace the establishment in an anti-establishment election - the Democrats once again choose the corporate establishment over the rank-and-file. Just as it looked like the Sanders candidate would rise on an unexpected tide of enthusiasm, the Clinton candidate slides in at the last moment to snatch everything away, this times with the help of the Israel hasbara squad.

Make no mistake: the Clinton wing of the party would rather lose forever than let this country shift even a little bit to the right. They are losing on purpose, and it is getting obscene.
https://newrepublic.com/article/140847/case-tom-perez-makes-no-sense
>>
Hannah Gizzlelock - Sun, 26 Feb 2017 12:41:40 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.388458 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388457
*shift even a little bit to the left
nb
>>
lumpen !rGOAfuB3jA - Sun, 26 Feb 2017 13:24:46 EST ID:g4ld2Uxs No.388459 Ignore Report Quick Reply
It was about money. They were afraid Ellison would come off as anti-Semitic to donors.
>>
Caroline Cruggleteck - Sun, 26 Feb 2017 13:31:09 EST ID:rF77Z2K0 No.388460 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388459
>It was about money. They were afraid Ellison would come off as not-pro-Israel-enough to donors.
Fixt.

This was never about antisemitism, Ellison was prominently backed by Sanders and he got nothing but glowing endorsements from Minnesota Jews.

Haim Saban started the antisemitism meme, and the DNC ran with it because the Clinton squad cares more about the opinions of Israeli businessmen than they do the opinions of American Jews.
>>
Caroline Ferryson - Sun, 26 Feb 2017 14:40:36 EST ID:Z7Na6ELH No.388461 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Perez made DNC chair with Ellison as the number 2

Sounds to me like both sides of the Democratic party are gonna come together. What the fuck is the problem?
>>
Jenny Cackledock - Sun, 26 Feb 2017 15:59:38 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.388462 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388461
I'd rather corporate dems got the hell out, but at the same time there needs to be some compromise. If dems are too divided, Republicans will keep chipping away the lower classes, civil liberties, and the constitution.
>>
Hannah Gizzlelock - Sun, 26 Feb 2017 16:19:45 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.388463 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388460
>Haim Saban started the antisemitism meme, and the DNC ran with it because the Clinton squad cares more about the opinions of Israeli businessmen than they do the opinions of American Jews.
As it turns out.

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/24/key-question-about-dnc-race-why-did-white-house-recruit-perez-to-run-against-ellison/
>Just over two weeks after Ellison announced, the largest single funder of both the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign – the Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban – launched an incredibly toxic attack on Ellison, designed to signal his veto. “He is clearly an anti-Semite and anti-Israel individual,” pronounced Saban about the African-American Muslim Congressman, adding: “Keith Ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party.”

>Saban has a long history not only of fanatical support for Israel – “I’m a one-issue guy, and my issue is Israel,” he told The New York Times in 2004 about himself – but also an ugly track record of animus toward Muslims. As The Forward gently put it, he is prone to “a bit of anti-Muslim bigotry,” including when he said Muslims deserve “more scrutiny,” and “also called for profiling and broader surveillance.” In 2014, he teamed up with right-wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson to push a pro-Israel agenda. In that notorious NYT profile, he attacked the ACLU for opposing Bush/Cheney civil liberties assaults and said: “On the issues of security and terrorism I am a total hawk.”

>No single political patron has done more for the Clintons over the span of their careers. In the past 20 years, Saban and his wife have donated $2.4 million to the Clintons’ various campaigns and at least $15 million to the Clinton Foundation, where Cheryl Saban serves as a board member. Haim Saban prides himself on his top-giver status: “If I’m not No. 1, I’m going to cut my balls off,” he once remarked on the eve of a Hillary fundraiser. The Sabans have given more than $10 million to Priorities USA, making them among the largest funders of the pro-Hillary super-PAC. In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential campaign, he vowed to spend “whatever it takes” to elect her.

Clinton and the Israel lobby will drive the Democrat party off a cliff.
>>
Fucking Blatherhall - Sun, 26 Feb 2017 16:34:19 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.388464 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388461
>Sounds to me like both sides of the Democratic party are gonna come together. What the fuck is the problem?

They won't. This is just a move to try and keep Ellison under control. Trust me, Hillary 2020 is inevitable.
>>
Caroline Clamblegold - Sun, 26 Feb 2017 19:31:18 EST ID:sUBj56yv No.388472 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388464
I doubt she'll live that long.
>>
Henry Huzzlewell - Sun, 26 Feb 2017 21:51:28 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.388479 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388472
Spite is an amazing energy....
>>
lumpen !rGOAfuB3jA - Sun, 26 Feb 2017 22:37:03 EST ID:g4ld2Uxs No.388481 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388464
If Dems put up another woman it'll be Warren. She would satisfy the progressive faction and probably be tolerable to the establishment base. Yeah Perez was another coup but as has been said, it was about donor money. Also Ellison's position makes it extremely difficult for the DNC to conspire against candidates now.

I don't think Hillary would even be willing to run again. Even if she was, the establishment wouldn't support her. Running Hillary again would stand a real chance of fracturing the party. Dems want the whitehouse back, that'll determine strategy.
>>
Henry Huzzlewell - Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:05:01 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.388498 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388481
The problem is, the Dem bench is pretty shallow, and the only people they have in power who can run are old Corporatists like Schumer and Wasserman-Schultz. Trust me, SOMEONE is gonna push Hillary. They are so locked into this Clinton Dynasty thing.

Meanwhile, they will lose probably another 75 seats in Congress...a couple of states will go Full GOP...and Trump will be able to call a Constitutional Convention. Where he can amend things so that "Fake News," is a felony and term limits are a thing of the past.
>>
Jack Sendlefit - Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:26:38 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388499 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388498

First election was in Delaware and Dems won huge. Watch the special and off mid-term elections for results.

Perez is a good pick because he's got organizer skills. Dems shouldn't worry about 2020 yet, they need to win mid-terms, governors and state legislators. As a former Secretary, Perez has familiarity.

My guess is the next Dem election will be like the last GOP one with 12 people.
>>
Clara Povingwidge - Mon, 27 Feb 2017 19:30:29 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.388514 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388499
The Dems do need state seats. Badly. I worry they have no idea how to get them though. They need inroads in red states. And I don't know if they can do that.
>>
Augustus Fingerfutch - Mon, 27 Feb 2017 19:47:36 EST ID:d3uaeKmz No.388515 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388514
and then when Democrats do win elections, the Republican incumbents waste no time minimizing their gains. They're fucking ruthless. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/north-carolinas-republicans-succeed-in-power-grab/510950/
>>
Doris Cacklewedging - Mon, 27 Feb 2017 23:18:31 EST ID:ak1UrSqG No.388519 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Nice... a secret ballot. What a bunch of cowards.

Not going to be Hilldawg 2020, or Warren. They're going to push Cory Booker 2020 hard, and I want to die already.
>>
Lillian Chonningsan - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:42:30 EST ID:Vwoc9qnJ No.388523 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>would rather lose forever than let this country shift even a little bit to the right.
except the opposite is true. letting the dems shift towards the leadership the rank and file want would mean a shift to the left.

don't forget the dems are already "to the right" based on a global standard.
>>
Doris Drenkinville - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 09:43:30 EST ID:sUBj56yv No.388524 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388523
He misspoke, the next post shows he meant Left.
>>
Cornelius Bardspear - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:17:02 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388531 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388519
> They're going to push Cory Booker 2020 hard, and I want to die already.

Then do what you did this election, bitch & moan, help tear him down and let Trump win a second term because your ideology is too pure.
>>
Wesley Greenlock - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:21:21 EST ID:zA8Zcg02 No.388533 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388531
how did democratic voters tear down hillary clinton?
>>
Doris Drenkinville - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:07:16 EST ID:sUBj56yv No.388534 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388531
Oh please, that "It was her turn" crap was just that, crap.
>>
Clara Povingwidge - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:24:57 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.388543 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388534
Yep. It was.

The GOP tried the same shit early on with Jeb, but were smart enough to see how the tide was turning against the idea of a primary being a coronation.

Seriously, unless the Dems float at least 10 candidates, they are fucked. And chances are they will just pick someone and go for another coronation.
>>
Cedric Grandford - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:33:10 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.388545 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388543
If the Dems would prop up someone who's not a globalist but a fucking nationalist who can talk common sense and actually try to improve this country for the better and not just sell it out to foreigners and minority lobbyists I'm sure they'd win.
>>
Phoebe Wamblelock - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:41:20 EST ID:+NSAEK8g No.388546 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388481
Elizabeth Warren would SMOKE Trump if she was picked for the DNC President nomination in 2012.

The problem is actually convincing Warren to finally run for president and not be as humble as she usually is.
>>
Phoebe Wamblelock - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:41:43 EST ID:+NSAEK8g No.388547 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388546
I mean 2020, but you get my point.

NB.
>>
Thomas Nomblefoot - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:43:28 EST ID:6POwg5Ik No.388548 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388546
Cant say I disagree with you. She totally nailed that wells fargo CEO..
>>
Doris Greenman - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:25:28 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.388553 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388545
No, propping up a nationalist only works if your party base is made up of a bunch of nationalist yahoos. Most Americans don't support the nationalist agenda, most left-wingers would dismiss such a candidate out of hand and abandon the party for the betrayal. It would be both political and ideological suicide, because that's not the will of the American people.

Just because 20% of the population managed to coup the government on a nationalist agenda in one election doesn't mean it will ever work again, that the American people actually support nationalist parties, or that any other party, or even any other candidate, could get away with the same kind of rhetoric Trump does, because Trump as a meme is expected to do the most unthinkable, outrageous shit possible, and thus we have been conditioned to accept it in his case. Do you think if some slimy lizard like say Ryan said those same things he could get away with it?
>>
Wesley Greenlock - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:54:02 EST ID:zA8Zcg02 No.388555 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388545
dude, go to school or learn a trade and get some job skills. you can't support your family by doing busy work at the widget factory any more. you, your irrational fear of the "globalization" boogeyman and your shitty desire for unskilled labor are dragging the USA down. in four years, the world will begin to pass us by and you'll just wonder, "why", while you're on your way to pick up your welfare check.
>>
Clara Povingwidge - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:55:42 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.388556 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388555
>Implying Trump isn't going to kill off all welfare programs.
>>
Cornelius Bardspear - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:56:22 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388557 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388546

Not according to polling. A generic Democrat does better than Warren against Trump.

>Forty-three percent of voters are ready to vote for a nameless Democrat in 2020, while just over a third say they’ll vote for Trump.

>Despite the public’s increasing misgivings about Trump’s behavior and tactics in the White House, he still beats Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in a hypothetical matchup, 42 percent to 36 percent - a fairly impressive margin for a less-than-popular president against the prominent senator.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/poll-trump-democrats-elizabeth-warren-235026

People don't like Warren as much as the left Dems do. That's a problem for Dems, as we saw.
>>
Hamilton Gimmerfuck - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 18:36:17 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.388570 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388557
Neoliberals already working overtime to poison the progressive well, I see.

Don't think we've somehow forgotten how smugly confident you and the other Clintonbots were the last time you thought you could dictate the future to us. Your polls don't mean shit.
>>
Phyllis Pishlotch - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 19:17:28 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.388572 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388555
LOL me? An accountant? On welfare? Worried about unskilled laborers taking mah jerb?

Nigga, let me explain to you the problem with globalism and why you Democrats will never win with a globalist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year's_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany
The fact that this crime against over a thousand women could have been avoided simply by not accepting refugees has the entire country (that's not globalist) up in arms. You think Swedish and French people are worried about losing their jobs? They're worried about their sons and daughters getting raped and murdered by people who aren't even doing anything for the country except leeching.

But, you've never heard of any of this, right? You know nothing about the massive right-wing revival in Europe, do you?
>>
Nicholas Worthingdale - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 20:29:13 EST ID:k7qxoeiA No.388581 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388531

Please, the left was trying to warn you that Clinton was a weak candidate against Trump. You just didn't listen and it cost us the election. Sanders ran a very tame campaign against her.

But you know, keep blaming the left for your candidate's loss, if that makes you feel better about things.
>>
Fuck Bemmlewon - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 20:37:04 EST ID:3RUZOfcK No.388582 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388570

>Your polls don't mean shit.

The polls were off by 1%.
>>
Archie Clipperchedging - Tue, 28 Feb 2017 21:53:00 EST ID:cBPyNYtq No.388584 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1488336780560.jpg -(13232B / 12.92KB, 400x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>388582
>>
Eugene Hubberchitch - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 15:55:30 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388605 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388584

You should follow the conversation better, this has nothing to do with the Oompa Loompa-in-Chief.


>>388570

>Neoliberals already working overtime to poison the progressive well, I see.

Neophytes to the left and right this election. As a Democrat I was as sad as you were to see that Warren doesn't have crossover appeal.

STOP MAKING THE PERFECT THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD. Republicans have learned divide and conquer, and you Ultra-Liberals are their pawns now. You're political "cutters" on the Democrats side and great boogeyman to push on their army of fat beta the future losers who hate you for your skinny jeans.

You need to learn how to win battles & skirmishes and not just show up for the decisive victory that will never come.

Support the most liberal ELECTABLE candidate.
>>
Reuben Manningfine - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 16:28:47 EST ID:NmweLP+h No.388606 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388605
hmm... The DNC had the fix in for Hillary to win the primary, and democrats voted for her in the general election. There wasn't a huge exodus of Bernie bros to Stein. Johnson got a lot more votes than normal, but he's further removed ideologically from the democratic platform than Stein, so I can't see Democrats who didn't like Hillary choosing him over Stein. I also don't think democrats stayed home based on the reported overall voter turnout.

I guess what I'm saying is, you have a real nice theory there, but I'm not sure if the election data supports it, because at the end of the day, Bernie & the rest of the democratic party supported Clinton in the general election.
>>
Barnaby Membleson - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 16:31:33 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.388607 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1488403893894.jpg -(214301B / 209.28KB, 810x539) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>388605
>Neophytes to the left and right this election.
If this is how smugly dismissive you guys are in humiliating defeat, I can only imagine how far up your own ass you'd be right now if you had actually managed to get your shit together and win.

Anyway I think I'd rather have a neophyte on my team than The Most Embarrassing Pack of Losers in American Presidential History.

>Support the most liberal ELECTABLE candidate.
Now where have I heard that one before?
>>
Polly Smallson - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 16:41:33 EST ID:D3IZqUk/ No.388609 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388457
My prediction is that in 2020, establishment will be as much of a dirty word for the democrats as it was this time around for the Republicans. Whoever can establish themselves as the anti-establishment candidate will win. This means very very little since it was just establishment types voting in the first place.
>>
Archie Clipperchedging - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 17:28:08 EST ID:cBPyNYtq No.388611 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388605
Bitch 420chan has never had any stake in any internet battles. Meanwhile 8,4, and plebit all claim the same victory. Each Chan all have the same dumb ass insults for each other. I don't need to follow up to see you tryina drop redpills then getting mad that it's way harder here than other places. Chill out bro.
>>
Jack Blonkinwater - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 17:47:01 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.388615 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388609
I dunno.
The DNC runs entirely on seniority. The longer you are in office, the more in charge you are. This is why Schumer and Pelosi run everything. They are in super-safe districts.

It also means that they have ZERO knowledge on how to run an election and win it. They did it ONCE. And now they are just coasting. Shit, I don't think they even get contested every year.
>>
Nicholas Worthingdale - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 18:54:31 EST ID:k7qxoeiA No.388616 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388605

> Support the most liberal ELECTABLE candidate.

I'm wondering how this is measured? It's this based on polling data or is just something centrists feel in their bones?
>>
Ebenezer Sidgehood - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 23:51:29 EST ID:6Lc+yC0b No.388627 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1488430289296.jpg -(76785B / 74.99KB, 500x579) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Fuck the Democrats. Abandon them. Push this country to the Left
>>
David Sandertark - Wed, 01 Mar 2017 23:58:24 EST ID:hzslIzrj No.388628 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388627
Can't be done. No third party will ever be strong enough to stand up to the Republican machine, plus no one would ever agree on which third party to back.

It socks dick, but the only viable option is to take over the Democratic party.
>>
Ernest Fibbleson - Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:40:58 EST ID:lgSS/nTT No.388644 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388457
>and believes the 2016 Democratic Primary was not rigged against Sen. Bernie Sanders.
LOL what does that even mean? believes? It's proven fact. What a douche GG Trump 2020
>>
Fanny Sendledot - Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:51:49 EST ID:3LkUNfDk No.388645 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388644

>believes? It's proven fact

The only thing that's "proven" is that some lower ranking DNC staffers said some mean things about Bernie in an email. They said they were pissed he hadn't dropped out yet after Hillary had already had an overwhelming lead in pledged delegates. The primary was already over except for the crying at that point.

"Some DNC staffers shittalked Bernie when the primary was essentially over" was then extrapolated into "DNC PLOTTING AGAINST BERNIE?"
>>
Thomas Wenningworth - Thu, 02 Mar 2017 11:47:18 EST ID:dYTPxAEI No.388652 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388645
>just tell them it was nothing but low level staffers throwing insults. Those peasants won't even remember Donna Brazile or Wasserman-Schultz or the number of debates or superdelegates or media coordination or using down-ballot funds for Hillary's campaign. Just say whatever, they'll believe you!
Your handlers need a better strategy. We're not as dumb and forgetful as they seem to think we are.
>>
Lillian Hepperdale - Thu, 02 Mar 2017 12:29:49 EST ID:FZwyp5B6 No.388654 Report Quick Reply
>>388645

The only reason Clinton had a lead was because of that "superdelegate" bullshit. If it weren't for that, Sanders likely would have cinched the nomination. The superdelegate angle padded Clinton's numbers by a massive amount and disenfranchised many voters who would otherwise had been voting for Sanders. It was a disgusting tactic and I don't see it changing any time soon.
>>
Cedric Blennerlad - Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:01:32 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388661 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388611

What the fuck are you on about? Speak a known language.
>>
Cedric Blennerlad - Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:07:51 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388662 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388607
>If this is how smugly dismissive you guys are in humiliating defeat, I can only imagine how far up your own ass you'd be right now if you had actually managed to get your shit together and win.

It definitely was a "humiliating defeat" but it's not like it was decisive. Trump won on the margins via the Electoral College in one of the weakest wins in POTUS history.

>Anyway I think I'd rather have a neophyte on my team than The Most Embarrassing Pack of Losers in American Presidential History.

That is turning out to be the Trump Team for sure. Stop pretending it was some overwhelming victory and Trump has some massive political mandate that is swinging the country. His Presidency has been a mess so far. And this Russia stuff is going to have legs until his tax return finally come out, and then it's gonna be bad.

Never forgot Trump won because people who voted for Obama TWICE voted for him, and only in the Rust Belt where the White Middle Class is collapsing under lack of education, work skills and opioid abuse. He's not going to be able to help these people aside from just writing them checks.

It's not like the Democrats have some large mountain to climb to get some victories, they just need to go back to better ground game which if this DE victory is any example is going well for them.
>>
Thomas Wenningworth - Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:35:26 EST ID:dYTPxAEI No.388664 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388662
>Stop pretending it was some overwhelming victory
Hillary spent twice as much as Trump, the biggest warchest in history, the blessings of a popular and well-liked outgoing president, and had more media endorsements than anyone before her. She had been planning this out for at least an decade, while Trump seemed to have no plan at all and no experience to speak of.

ANY victory, with that kind of massive disadvantage, is a decisive and overwhelming victory. The fact that he wasn't even trying just shows how incompetent your team was.
>>
Alice Hurryshaw - Thu, 02 Mar 2017 15:58:27 EST ID:YohzJ4uM No.388667 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388661
lemme speak your language: lurk more newfag.
>>
Cedric Blennerlad - Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:05:07 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388668 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388667

Maybe try turning off the video games, entering the workforce, and not sounding like some dumbshit teenage neet fat virgin. You make SJWs look completely normal.
>>
Cedric Blennerlad - Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:06:23 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388669 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388664
>ANY victory, with that kind of massive disadvantage, is a decisive and overwhelming victory

No. That's not how scoreboards work. Overwhelming victories = blowout routs. This is just basic knowledge.
>>
Jenny Blathergold - Thu, 02 Mar 2017 16:10:08 EST ID:sUBj56yv No.388670 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388664
That's a dark horse victory, not an overwhelming one.
>>
Phyllis Goodman - Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:01:50 EST ID:/gkdUckA No.388673 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388670
that's not really the right term either, Trump is the furthest thing from a dark horse candidate. His campaign was a marketing ploy to begin with, to boost his name brand. It was an upset
>>
Shit Drollerpog - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 07:50:28 EST ID:Y5J8uspZ No.388688 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388669
It's always a good sign when you have to resort to arguing semantics to establish just how much of an failure you are.

>Vote Democrat! We're going to refuse to listen to you and we'll spit on you every time you try to speak your mind, but at least we're only humiliating failures and not overwhelming failures! Now shut up and get in line!

>>388668
>…also we act like insecure 4channers when we get flustered. We're the adults in the room!
>>
Oliver Wobbleshaw - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 11:55:46 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388705 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388688
>It's always a good sign when you have to resort to arguing semantics to establish just how much of an failure you are.

No it matters, because it wasn't that much of a failure. Go ahead and pretend it was some great victory, it just makes you vulnerable to defeat.

There's a reason Republicans in Congress are waffling on Obamacare. Trump lost by a huge Popular vote, and remember there's no Electoral College in Congressional races. Many of these current GOP Congressmen's district went for Hillary, and the Dems picked up seats in the House and Senate.

They realize that Trump's weak victory show how vulnerable they are.

I understand this is your first election and you don't know shit, and your guy won, so I'll let you be a giant faggot. See you in the Mid-Terms.
>>
Shit Drollerpog - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:32:51 EST ID:Y5J8uspZ No.388711 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388705
>No it matters, because it wasn't that much of a failure.
You seem to be under the impression that there's partial credit for these kinds of elections. There isn't. You failed. It doesn't matter how much you failed by. You had a job to do, one specific job, and you failed to do it. You were all utterly convinced - to the point that you were willing to fracture your own party - that Team Hillary was going to win. Not come close to winning. To win. That was the whole point. That was the ONLY argument that you had, her ability to win. That was the ONE BIG THING that was supposed to justify Hillary. And you lost. Hillary isn't co-president, Pelosi isn't co-majority leader. This wasn't a partial win, or pyrrhic win, or a draw. It's a loss. So no, it doesn't fucking matter. A loss is a loss.

You fucking lost. Acknowledge your mistakes or you're going to lose again. But considering how unshakably ironclad your dedication is to a demonstrably losing strategy, maybe you're fine with losing.

But please, go ahead and insist that we should all listen to you because you're not "that much of a failure". Truly, you are the cream of the failure crop.
>>
Angus Pongerford - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:38:20 EST ID:OTWQoa7l No.388712 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388711
This really must be your first election, dude.
>>
Cornelius Grimbury - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:58:40 EST ID:k7qxoeiA No.388714 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388712

This is such a tiresome shitpost here. Can we just stop repeating this line?
>>
Shit Drollerpog - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:59:24 EST ID:Y5J8uspZ No.388715 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388712
>This really must be your first election, dude.
This is really the best you've got, huh?

Let me know when this cunning strategy of yours starts winning elections.
>>
Eugene Simmerdale - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 13:02:57 EST ID:0dJZtcm2 No.388716 Ignore Report Quick Reply
p.rez isn't from the loser clinton wing (lost to obama 08, trump 16) of the party, he is from the pwnage obama wing of the party
ppl think its they the same wing but nope they different
>>
Angus Pongerford - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 13:24:01 EST ID:OTWQoa7l No.388718 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1488565441039.png -(522736B / 510.48KB, 750x537) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>388715
I didn't even want Hilary to win in the first place and that was in part of the democrats' own idiocy. You seem to think that Trump winning the election alone is all that matters when the fact that he lost the popular vote and is one of the least liked presidents of all the time had one of his biggest EOs challenged by the courts. Fact is, his winning the presidency isn't going to mean much if he doesn't actually achieve what he set out to do or more importantly make the country much better than it was when he leaves office. And right now, it doesn't look like that'll happen.

"My" side lost, but it victorious side doesn't look like to be in much better shape. But I guess if you're the type to only care about Trump shitposting every time anybody says something about him on twitter as a victory, than whatever.
>>
Shit Drollerpog - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 13:39:24 EST ID:Y5J8uspZ No.388719 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388718
Oh, I think I get it. For some reason you think this thread is about Trump.

This thread is about the Dems, and why they lost, and what they (aren't) doing to avoid losing in the future. I don't give a shit about Trump's performance in office and that's not the topic of this thread so go take that argument somewhere else.

Stop using Trump to distract yourself from your own catastrophic errors in judgement. This goes for you as well as the DNC.
>>
Angus Pongerford - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 13:50:12 EST ID:OTWQoa7l No.388720 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388719
Are you saying you don't care how Trump managed to win the election, or are do you sincerely have such a hateboner for the DNC that you're not even going to bother to recognize how he factored into it? Because a part of losing is trying to figure out what the winner did so you can win again.

I get the feeling we maybe actually on the same page.
>>
Phyllis Goodman - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 13:58:12 EST ID:n8qwnZIv No.388721 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388716
I don't think it's legitimate or useful to draw microdistinctions according to individual personalities and electoral circumstances like that. Obama identified himself as a New Democrat, like the Clintons—radically centrist, trade-oriented, technocratic, supported by Wall Street and Silicon Valley donors. Perez is in that same mold.
>>
Oliver Wobbleshaw - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:04:52 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388722 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388714

It's not a shitpost, it's blatantly obvious people don't know what they're talking about and it's either they somehow avoided Presidential politics for decades (almost impossible) or that they're new to elections and don't have any idea what they're talking about.

>>388715
>This is really the best you've got, huh?

It hurst because you know we're right.

>Let me know when this cunning strategy of yours starts winning elections.

Maybe when Republican Presidents can start winning the popular vote again? If you didn't notice the first election post the POTUS election was won massively by Democrats. Howabout that cunniny strategy?

Like I said, Republicans are being giant pussies right now because unlike you they know what's coming and they're scared.

Do you REALLY believe that Republican will be in power forever? If you do, it proves you know nothing about American politics.

Just being a giant Trumpkin meme-faggot doesn't make you right because you won a single Election. Trump didn't do anything yet, and so far his Presidency has been the joke it was predicted to be.
>>
Oliver Wobbleshaw - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:10:59 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388724 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388719
>This thread is about the Dems, and why they lost, and what they (aren't) doing to avoid losing in the future.

It's not about why they lost, it's how the win again and they passed the first test in Deleware with a ass kicking of the GOP there in the state senate.

>Stop using Trump to distract yourself from your own catastrophic errors in judgement. This goes for you as well as the DNC.

Again, you do know that popular vote is how all other elections aside from the POTUS election? You seem to think Trump's victory coincides with Democrats losing even though they picked up Congressional seats in the very same election.

3 MILLION more people voted for the Democratic candidate. A million Trump voters also voted Democrat down ballot. Many of the districts now run by Republicans saw their voters vote Hillary on election day.

As we've said, you're either ignorant to how this is going, or being willfully stupid.

Elections haven't changed, the way you win them hasn't changed. The Democrats know how to win they've done it before. They were lazy and they paid for it, it won't happen again.
>>
Hannah Gablingway - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:18:28 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.388725 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388722
>Do you REALLY believe that Republican will be in power forever?

Only if they manage to eliminate democracy. Which, to be fair, they seem to be working on.
>>
Eliza Wankinlit - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:40:56 EST ID:r9K31QY1 No.388729 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388720
>Are you saying you don't care how Trump managed to win the election
Was Trump "in office" over the course of this last election? Do you think "performance in office" refers to a time period that elapsed before he was sworn into office?

>>388724
>we won Delaware yay!
Lol, what an accomplishment. Come back when you win an actual swing state, or the Rust Belt. Delaware was never your problem, don't embarrass yourself.

>Again, you do know that popular vote is how all other elections aside from the POTUS election? You seem to think Trump's victory coincides with Democrats losing even though they picked up Congressional seats in the very same election.
>3 MILLION more people voted for the Democratic candidate. A million Trump voters also voted Democrat down ballot. Many of the districts now run by Republicans saw their voters vote Hillary on election day.
And you lost.
>>
Cornelius Grimbury - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:42:54 EST ID:k7qxoeiA No.388730 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388722

No, it's a shitpost. It's a simple ad hominem and adds nothing to the conversation. You may think it's a real zinger because people don't usually have a come back, but they're just not responding because you're acting like an asshole.

I despise Trump, and I've been voting for a long time... I'm willing to bet I'm among the oldest posters here. But a lot of what's going on is unprecedented, and when you throw out that line you sound like a 25 year old who thinks he has it all figured out because he's been through one extra election cycle.
>>
Eliza Wankinlit - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 14:45:33 EST ID:r9K31QY1 No.388731 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388722
>Do you REALLY believe that Republican will be in power forever?
No, because eventually you retards will die and cede the party over to people who actually want to win.

I'd prefer if I didn't have to wait that long, yet here you are.
>>
Albert Crashlug - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 15:14:39 EST ID:mfh9pMUn No.388739 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388729
America lost. Democracy lost.
>>
Angus Pongerford - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 16:27:41 EST ID:OTWQoa7l No.388750 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1488576461039.jpg -(78616B / 76.77KB, 887x1097) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>388729
>Was Trump "in office" over the course of this last election? Do you think "performance in office" refers to a time period that elapsed before he was sworn into office?

What the fuck are you even talking about anymore?
>>
Oliver Wobbleshaw - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 16:28:54 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388752 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388729
>Lol, what an accomplishment. Come back when you win an actual swing state, or the Rust Belt. Delaware was never your problem, don't embarrass yourself.

There hasn't been any other elections you half-wit. The only person who just embarrassed themselves was you.

>And you lost.

I didn't lose anything, I most likely gained a nice hefty tax cut..

The Dems lost the Presidency yes, because of the Electoral College. You actually don't know that every election BUT the POTUS is a popular vote? I'm not sure why you're having such a hard time understand this.

You actually think Trump winning the POTUS via the Electoral College while the GOP lost seats in Congress and post election means the Dems are in some deep disarray? Pull your head out of your Trumpkin ass.

Again, are you really this dumb or just playing it? Personally I think as I said, this is your first election and you have NO CLUE. I'm willing to be you're one of these "hurr...butthurt" people and never even voted before.

Trump won, Dems won too. It's just a fact.
>>
Eliza Wankinlit - Fri, 03 Mar 2017 17:05:53 EST ID:r9K31QY1 No.388758 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388750
>What the fuck are you even talking about anymore?
I'm trying to figure out why you thought your question made sense in the context of what was said before. If you're still confused, feel free to read the thread over again I guess.

>>388752
>There hasn't been any other elections
That's correct. Once there are, and once you win a few, then you can go around talking that good shit about who knows how the world works and who should be running the party. Once you can prove that your "fuck the base, never change" strategy has actual, verifiable real world merit, then you justify acting like you know what you're doing. Until then, you're talking out of your ass.

But you haven't. You fucked the last election worse than anyone thought possible and, as you point out, there haven't been any since then. Which means that you and the rest of the DNC have not proved that you know what you're doing. All this masturbatory condescending shit you're spewing about how the voters need to just shut up and trust the establishment has nothing to back it up.

So until then, don't act so surprised when progressives refuse to uncritically follow along with whatever you say.

>I didn't lose anything
Bitch please, you're actually resorting to the "lol i trol u" of political arguments? Turns out you were just pretending this whole time?

You lost. Deal with it.
>>
Eugene Cloddlestark - Sat, 04 Mar 2017 21:25:44 EST ID:GxeTE1UG No.388805 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388758
>You lost. Deal with it.

Haha. What are you talking about? Your problem is you think everybody is as pathetic as you are. You were so caught up in this whole "you lost" like most Trumpkins, using it as your go to phrase shows a lack of intelligence and imagination.

But I'll play:
What did I lose?
>>
Polly Punderchure - Sun, 05 Mar 2017 14:17:31 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.388828 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388805
>You were so caught up in this whole "you lost" like most Trumpkins
Not everybody who is frustrated with the DNC leadership is a Trump supporter.

That's the whole premise of this thread, you retard.
>>
Samuel Dondlesug - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 00:07:34 EST ID:W0NeIHPk No.388866 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388828

This. Christ, I hate those retards.

We need our own Tea Party.
>>
Henry Smallfuck - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 07:48:06 EST ID:kdeXld5j No.388873 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388828
My amigo.
I don't care whether or not people vote Trump like I did; as long as they know Hillary and the Democrats are bad, then we're all good.

I used to be a Dem. Then Obama got elected and I realized that their words are hollow and their statistics are falsified. But thanks to Bush I couldn't become a Republican. So at this point I just want both parties to change drastically, and luckily I know Trump is a sign of change for the Republicans.
>>
Fucking Denkinfat - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 13:25:33 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388883 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388828
>>388866

Oh no, here's come the Jill Stein interpretive dance troupe.

>That's the whole premise of this thread, you retard.

Well retard, that retarded argument would make sense if I was addressing the thread's subject generally, and not a particular other retard in this thread who is most obviously a deep Trump believer. The reason you get so frustrated that people mention how clueless you political newbies is because it's true, and this type of retarded outburst blatantly shows it. Retard.

You've definitely proven that horseshoe graphic shown elsewhere on this board: the Ivory Tower idealist Liberal retard whose such a retarded purist you've bent so far you're fully under the bridge to side with an obvious Trumpkin that's concern trolling the Democrats to deflect from the Trump Presidency flailing and failing.

The Democrats are never going to be the great Socialist Party you want them to be, as Americans are not natural socialists and will forever be unwilling to foot the bill for your liberal arts degree. As soon as you enter the existing arena and stop crying that you can't dribble outside the lines because "...like it's all a construct dude man. It's in our mindzzz," you might be able to help make change

>We need our own Tea Party.

It's happening, you just don't want to recognize it as like the Republicans you want to tear the Democratic Party down. Granted the difference is you want to re-build it in your fantastical non-Realpolitik party, and they just want the Democratic party destroyed for good. Lucky for them, you're helping anyway with your hand-wringing and tut-tutting that politics isn't the game of friendly hacky-sack you wish it was, if only we were all just as smart as you in the theory and philosophy of blah, blah, blah retardation.

But start here - http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/democrats-trump-special-elections-235692
>>
Angus Soppertedging - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 14:39:59 EST ID:oGcKWoF1 No.388889 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388883
>a particular other retard in this thread who is most obviously a deep Trump believer.
No I am not. I support Bernie.

You are not as smart as you think you are.
>>
Ian Doblingwodging - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 15:38:29 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.388893 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388883
>Americans are not natural socialists

That's one hell of a fucking retarded appeal to muh human nature.

You've illustrated the problem with establishment democrats perfectly though; talking down to and insulting both sides while at the same time demonstrating your own ignorance and naivete.
>>
Phyllis Goodman - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 15:41:03 EST ID:AA/jMkGz No.388894 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388883
>enters thoughtful and concrete political discussion
>flings shit about "ivory tower elite idealist liberal socialist purist interpretive-dancing postmodern social constructionist retard" as if anyone was talking about critical theory
>>
Fucking Denkinfat - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 15:56:01 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388898 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388889

So this is you >>388758 Ir9K31QY1 because that's who I was referring to.

If it is, you might as well become a Republican because you sure sound just like Trumpfag. You might be the most butthurt Bernie bro in the world to be such a cutter.
>>
Fucking Denkinfat - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 15:58:43 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388899 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388893

And you've once again proved you're a political neophyte with ZERO Realpolitick experience and a complete lack of understanding of the American people. But not surprised since this is obviously your first election and all you know about politics is bullshit you read in books.

The only one constantly showing their ignorance and naivete are those willing to lose over and over again because the perfect is the enemy of the good. Grow up.
>>
Fucking Denkinfat - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:01:12 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388901 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388894

I was in the conversation from the beginning.

>thoughtful and concrete

LOL. Go back and follow my conversation with the "You lost, get over it" guy.
>>
Hannah Pemmledock - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:27:21 EST ID:rRX9ajtT No.388907 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388883
>Americans are not natural socialists

America has had tons of socialistic movements through its history you moron. Ever heard of Eugene V. Debs?

If you think "it can't happen here!!!!!!" you are a delusional fuck.
>>
Angus Sisslenag - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:29:47 EST ID:VLZSAHSu No.388908 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388899
The general populace lose regardless of who wins in electoral politics. Maybe the problem is trying to win in that arena in the first place?
>>
Ian Doblingwodging - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:35:27 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.388909 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388899
>And you've once again proved

I'm a different person, fuckface. Nice job illustrating my point all over again.
>>
Angus Soppertedging - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:46:54 EST ID:oGcKWoF1 No.388911 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388898
>If it is, you might as well become a Republican because you sure sound just like Trumpfag.
You've spent this entire thread shitting on progressives, appealing to authority, trotting out worn conservative stereotypes about Ivory Towers and hacky-sack, engaging in childish name-calling, generally acting like a toxic condescending cunt, and getting confused by poster IDs.

If anybody here is acting like the stereotypical Trump voter, it is you.
>>
Sophie Cerryshit - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 16:58:41 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.388912 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388883
>Well retard, that retarded argument would make sense if I was addressing the thread's subject generally, and not a particular other retard in this thread who is most obviously a deep Trump believer.
Seeing as how you were proved wrong about that, presumably you now accept that my argument does, in fact, makes sense.

At the very least, you've started to entertain the possibility that you might have been wrong about other things, right? Right?

>The Democrats are never going to be the great Socialist Party you want them to be, as Americans are not natural socialists and will forever be unwilling to foot the bill for your liberal arts degree.
You lot haven't had a very good track record over the past few years when it comes to predicting the future, so I'm sure you'll understand if nobody takes these kinds of proclamations seriously anymore.

While I have your attention, I was hoping that you could answer the question that was posed in >>388616. It is a very good question I would also like the answer to, but you seem to have passed it by without answering it. I'm sure that was an honest mistake, so I'll pose the question to you again:
>I'm wondering how this [electability of potential candidates] is measured? It's this based on polling data or is just something centrists feel in their bones?
>>
Rebecca Nenderworth - Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:49:51 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388936 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388909

More than one person can be a political neophyte you unfuckable dipshit. What point am I proving, that your just another child in this kindergarten jerk off session?
>>
Rebecca Nenderworth - Tue, 07 Mar 2017 11:55:30 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388937 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388911
>If anybody here is acting like the stereotypical Trump voter, it is you.

Because I'm pointing out that Liberals, especially ones that no fuck all about politics are their own worst enemy? Of course I'm being condescending, it's pathetic. It's incredibly short-sighted to take your patch of "tear it down" when already the Democrats are winning races because they're not taking victory for granted.

I'm confused by IDs? Your ID is not r9K31QY1 which is who I was talking to when you cut in. I saw you completely ignored that.
>>
Rebecca Nenderworth - Tue, 07 Mar 2017 12:00:49 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388938 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388907
>Ever heard of Eugene V. Debs?

Of course, I took American History in High School. That fact that you're talking about a guy who has been dead almost 100 years should tell you something?

Anything Post-Reagan Era is a new world. This is a country where Blue Collar Union Workers think it's Unions that are destroying America. Do you really think pushing Free College for Everybody is a good selling point for these people?

Ever notice Marx & Engles, who were sure their ideas wold take over industrial nations first and foremost, were wrong and it was countries filled with peasants who embraced Communism instead?

Labor Organization and Unions are almost completely gone. The Direction of the country is not headed towards socialism and hasn't for several decades. If you think embracing that is where the Democratic Party will find success you're delusional.
>>
Jenny Chuvingville - Tue, 07 Mar 2017 12:03:16 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.388939 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388936
>What point am I proving

That you're just arrogantly flinging shit without actually looking where you're flinging it.
>>
Rebecca Nenderworth - Tue, 07 Mar 2017 12:05:53 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.388941 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388939

Because it doesn't matter. I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.
>>
Eliza Gundlehood - Tue, 07 Mar 2017 14:27:29 EST ID:oGcKWoF1 No.388944 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388937
>I'm confused by IDs? Your ID is not r9K31QY1 which is who I was talking to when you cut in.
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of dynamic IPs?

Anyway, I wasn't talking about me, necessarily. You have a habit of misattributing arguments made by others and mixing up your responses that goes beyond your interactions in this thread.

>>388941
>I'm sorry I hurt your feelings.
And you accuse others of acting like a Trumpkin? This kind of response is like page 1 of the Trump Shitposter's Handbook.
>>
Jenny Chuvingville - Tue, 07 Mar 2017 17:46:32 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.388951 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388941
It matters when you apparently wish to refute the assertion that you're acting like an arrogant shitflinging douche. If that's not the case though, fine with me.
>>
Hugh Honeyfield - Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:53:16 EST ID:oFKIlvAe No.388963 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388938
No bro, you took AP US History in high school. Maybe Honors with a good teacher if they taught you about Debs.
>>
Graham Canderstone - Mon, 13 Mar 2017 15:27:28 EST ID:MQpXQ/h3 No.389235 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388616
I, too, am interested in hearing an explanation for this, especially after the disaster that was this last election.

I3fn, how DO you come to be so confident in who the more electable candidate is? What methodology do you use? Does that methodology take into account this latest election?
>>
Emma Dartforth - Mon, 13 Mar 2017 18:02:00 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389240 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388963
>No bro, you took AP US History in high school.

Yes. The Pullman Strike was covered. We also read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" as well. Regardless, that information is interesting historically but mostly useless now.

> Does that methodology take into account this latest election?

The last election was lost on the ground, more so than the candidate who received a shit ton more votes then the winner. So that is more a tactics error than a strategy error, and the Democrats seem to be aware they were being lazy. The bullshit they pulled with Sanders was stupid too, as he probably would have lost to Clinton anyway.

The email hacks...not sure if there will ever be a way to combat that, especially when they're so prevalent and only on one side. I imagine that stuff will just get worse going forward.

People need to stop accepting the Trumpian line that the election was some huge landslide blowout. Democratic organizers/pollsters have already said that is incredibly short-sighted and have won several elections already. They gained seats in both the House & Senate in that election because more Dems voted overall.

There's a reason so many Republicans are antsy about this Obamacare "replacement" that's being rushed through. Many of these people saw their districts vote for Hillary in the last election. They're up for re-election for the mid-terms and already see the path for them seems bad. THERE IS NO ELECTORAL COLLEGE IN CONGRESS. More Democrats voted in the last election than Republicans. People who voted for Obama TWICE, and voted Democrat down ballot voted for Trump.

So until people see the last election for what it was, and not what Trump and his followers are trying to sell it as, the better they can see the path forward.

Can the Dems botch it? Of course, but in the way US politics swing they have a good chance in the Mid-Terms.
>>
Samuel Herryfuck - Tue, 14 Mar 2017 07:37:39 EST ID:GWrUAms9 No.389263 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389240
So, you spent a lot of time explaining how your methodology got foiled, but you skipped the part where you explained the methodology to begin with.

How do you determine ahead of time, with so much confidence, who is the more electable candidate? What criteria is being used?
>>
Clara Smalllock - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 11:58:43 EST ID:856EflMT No.389327 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389263
He's just going to keep dodging the question and hope that nobody notices. That's what I3Fn does when he runs out of insults and appeals to authority.

He's basically the Clintonite version of X8 on this board.
>>
Rebecca Hucklesut - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 12:55:08 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389328 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389263

I'm sorry, I made the assumption you knew the most basics about politics and campaigns, but it seems you're either a moron or a troll.

The criteria generally involves asking prospective voters who they're more likely to vote for (polling) and then holding these things called Primary Elections where people do this thing called voting, and choose the candidate they feel is the most electable.

Since people aren't monolithic block, they all make their own decision.

Seriously, playing dumb make you look fucking dumb.
>>
Rebecca Hucklesut - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:15:51 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389331 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389327

And you're just another Bernie Bro who is living under the delusion that Bernie could have beaten Trump when there was no evidence of that.

I bet you think Bernie lost by 4 millions votes (55% - 43%) to Clinton solely because the DNC had their finger on the scale for her? I get you're a college educated liberal white kid, but a huge voting block of the Democratic party is minorities and they did not like Bernie. That's why in the Dem Primaries he got destroyed in the South.

His reaction - oh they're just not educated voters. Did you know of 40 states, not one in 240 years have sent a Jewish Senator to congress, let alone a Socialist, Jewish, Atheist.

I mean that's what this is right, you not being able to understand how Clinton was a more electable candidate then Sanders so therefore the entire credibility of the "methodology" is suspect?

>He's basically the Clintonite version of X8 on this board.

Wow, you're an insufferable little cunt bag aren't you?
>>
Polly Buzzfuck - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 13:18:55 EST ID:QK8mfsjv No.389332 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389331

Why don't you go ahead and compare the polls of Sanders v Trump and Clinton v Trump that happened back during the rigged primary
>>
Shitting Dommlefoot - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:11:24 EST ID:xwNrC1vl No.389335 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389331
>Bernie could have beaten Trump when there was no evidence of that
But there was...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

>let alone a Socialist, Jewish, Atheist.
how many socialist jewish atheists have run?

>That's why in the Dem Primaries he got destroyed in the South.
That didn't amount to much, since Virginia was the only "southern" state that Clinton actually beat trump in. Plus, someone can say that Bernie beat Clinton in the midwest, states like Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Wisconson, Kansas, Nebraska, etc...
>>
Ebenezer Goodhall - Wed, 15 Mar 2017 15:51:46 EST ID:dwSczJ1l No.389341 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389331
>the delusion that Bernie could have beaten Trump when there was no evidence of that.
Polls taken during the primary season consistently showed Sanders as performing better against Trump than Clinton. Favorability polls had Sanders as the most popular politician in America versus one of the most unpopular presidential candidates in history. Neither of these facts were a secret, and in the post directly above this one you say that polling informs how you determine a candidate's electability, so by your own words the only relevant criteria (polls) all pointed to Sanders. And yet throughout the whole contest you guys insisted that Clinton was the only electable candidate, the same people now pushing for Perez.

So which is it? Is electability determined by polling, and you guys intentionally ignored your own criteria to disastrous effect? Or is there some other determinant of electability that you're not telling us?

Either way makes you come across as either a liar or incompetent.

>Wow, you're an insufferable little cunt bag aren't you?
Whatever it takes to get you to finally answer the question.
>>
Oliver Smallspear - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 10:09:05 EST ID:dwSczJ1l No.389372 Ignore Report Quick Reply
"Democrats Would Rather Lose Than Win With A Progressive"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usnxoskl3us
>>
Oliver Sodgemitch - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 11:06:49 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.389374 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Clintonite X8
LOL this is rich.

But also,
>Proof Bernie would have beaten Trump.
It's conceptually impossible to prove that Bernie would have won, especially seeing as I could whip out a dozen news articles about how Clinton had a 90%+ chance of winning, which, of course, wasn't true.
Besides, I studied the primary votes; Bernie got less votes than Clinton by a significant amount.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
>>
Hamilton Buzzstone - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:13:15 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389386 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Hillary won by 4 million votes over Sanders in the Dem Primary.

Bernies candidates lost HUGE in the election. As much as you guys like to pretend he could have beaten Trump and going hard left is the secret just exposes you for being children.

RUSS FEINGOLD.

I like the guy, but he lost to Ron "fucking dumb as shit" Johnson in Wisconsin by a bigger margin than Clinton did.

Yeah that's right, people voted Hillary for POTUS and down ballot clicked this guys name. This happened over-and-over again in the rust belt. Florida FILLED with Jewish voters too a giant shit on Bernie's candidates.

Look at the PROPS Bernie supported in CO and CA. All lost.

$15/hour minium wage was a loser. Free college was a loser.

I get it's your first election. We all know that because when we bring it up you seethe in anger. Ok cool you're not a Trump meme-fag troll, but you stand with them. I hope you get an A in class.
>>
Hamilton Buzzstone - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:21:42 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389387 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389332

Why don't you? The burden of proof is on you since Clinton won by a large margin.

You won't and can't.
>>
Hamilton Buzzstone - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:25:43 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389388 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389335
>how many socialist jewish atheists have run?

You tell me.
>>
Hamilton Buzzstone - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:32:17 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389389 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389372
>"Democrats Would Rather Lose Than Win With A Progressive"

Not watching your shit. But tell me by "Democrats" are they talking about people who vote Democrat or the evil establishment that kept poor Bernie down?

We've covered this. People in Unions hate Unions and vote for Republicans. They covet their 1% yearly pay raise but despise a $15/hour minimum wage.

Americans hate each other. They mistrust each other. Trump saw it and drove a wedge. Hillary pretended it didn't exist. Bernie tried to make people believe the opposite.

"Hope and Change" is poison to these fucking poor losers. They voted Trump to tear down a bunch of people whose live will mostly be unchanged by who the POTUS is.

Republican voters are worse cutters than you are. At least you have you ivory tower.
>>
Clara Crattingmeck - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 14:07:41 EST ID:WQQ+NOb5 No.389391 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389387
Since you're an unformed, lazy fuck who doesn't even read the thread, i'll help you out.

the trump vs sanders poll is here (already posted in >>389335): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

trump vs clinton is here:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Sanders had a 10.1 point lead in polls. Clinton had a 3.1 point lead and underperformed.

So go ahead and deflect this comment without addressing anything of substance. I know it's hard, though, since your whole point about Clinton being electable is difficult to defend when she didn't get elected.
>>
John Crondleshaw - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:02:22 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.389392 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389386
I wonder it that result would have been the same if voter lists in NYC hadn't been purged, if independent voters in California had been given the Democratic crossover ballots they were supposed to get instead of provisional ballots that basically went in the trash, and I'd many caucuses weren't decided by coin tosses, card draws, and voice votes in which whatever side the judge wanted to win would be considered "louder" no matter what. I wonder what it would have been if the media hadn't waged a relentless smear campaign against him aimed at demoralizing his base by turning "Hillary is the only person on the planet who can win, so there's no point in voting for anyone else" into the dominant narrative.

I wonder if the results would have been different if there were no super delegates padding every Clinton victory and loss, and if AP didn't declare her the nominee the night before California voted...
>>
John Crondleshaw - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 15:08:51 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.389393 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389392
Or if the number of polling places across the country hadn't dropped by margins as high as 60% compared to the 2012 and 2008 elections and if many polling places across the country didn't find themselves "running out of ballots"
>>
Thomas Bongerworth - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 20:25:32 EST ID:T43ZgZvA No.389400 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389391
So were they corrupt, complacent or just stupid? I honestly wondered about that during your primaries. Bernie seemed easily the rational choice on pretty much every level if you wanted to win.
>>
Phineas Dredgebun - Thu, 16 Mar 2017 22:46:28 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.389403 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389400
>> were they corrupt, complacent or just stupid?
D. All of the above
>>
Wesley Granddock - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 09:57:05 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389406 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389391

I'm uniformed? That coming from somebody whose just finished their first election and just has all the answers. Pfft.

Nice try. There's no proof Bernie would have beaten Trump. Hillary has massive leads that early in the campaign as well. Bernie candidates and the propositions he pushed FAILED at an even larger rate that Hillary did in the end. This is a fact.

Bernie was over and over again unable to explain how he was going to pay for these massive programs other than - "We're going to raise taxes." People didn't buy it, and didn't vote for it.

>So go ahead and deflect this comment without addressing anything of substance.

You keep pretending that the proof Bernie's ideas failed at the ballot box "lack substance." You have ZERO evidence Bernie would have beat Trump except polling from May 2016. You're just not as smart as you think you are and you're desperately spinning wheels. Join us in reality.

Show me where in the actual election a candidate Bernie supported/campaigned for or a provision/prop he supported succeeded. I showed you one where he failed, I can find you more:

Amendment 69 in Colorado, Zephyr Teachout in NY-19th Congressional District House, Prop 61 in California. Like Feingold backed by Bernie and like Feingold total losers. The idea people whould have voted Bernie at the top of the ballot but down ballot voted against his ideas and candidates is frankly moronic on your end. His platform didn't resonate in CA and CO!! That's a huge fail for the supposed liberal savior.

America is just not ready now, nor has it been in decades, to dive into your hipster Socialist dream world. You can argue why until the cows come home, but that doesn't address the fact these ideas failed to get votes on election day. FAILED.

You keep demanding substance and data, but all you got is bullshit hopes & dreams, some gut feeling and a year old poll. Bernie performed horribly in the rust belt and so did his candidates in the Dem primary and then the general election.

Look at PA. Trump beat Hillary there by less than 50,000 voters. Hillary beat Bernie by over 200,000!

Get real.
>>
David Derringfure - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:27:37 EST ID:xwNrC1vl No.389409 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389406
you asked for evidence & evidence was provided. how far are you going to move the goalposts back? you really do have X8 levels of delusion.
>>
Wesley Granddock - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 10:54:51 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389411 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389409

Again, nice try. Your evidence is a link to a poll from 1 year ago. It's very Weak, weak, weak "evidence" and mine is much more substantive.

The only one delusional here is you, stop projecting you whiny cunt. Bernie would not have beat Trump, and the evidence from the actual election proves it. Hillary had huge leads on-and-off during the campaign in polling over Trump and she lost. Just like you.
>>
Clara Wibberseg - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 11:32:12 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.389412 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389409
>You really do have X8 levels of delusions.
Lol

>>389411
You said everything I'd have said. This guy thinks 1 shitty poll is proof that Bernie would beat Trump, when I could whip out like a million polls right now that say Clinton would have beat Trump by a landslide, which we all know did not happen.

Or have people already forgotten that we had a consensus that polls don't mean shit since clearly all of them (during 2016) were wrong, meaning they weren't conducted properly to begin with.
>>
Edwin Turveyshit - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 15:30:36 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.389430 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389411
There's no reason to believe Bernie wouldn't have won all the same states Hillary did, unless your position is that all the Clinton supporters would have voted for Trump, which is completely retarded.

And since Bernie would have had the brains to actually campaign in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, he'd likely have won those states too, which is all any candidate would have needed to beat Trump. Look at the primary results in Michigan and Wisconsin, then look at the General Election results in those states. He wouldn't have ran such an arrogant and elitist campaign, would have had the full support of the Democratic party, and none of the baggage that Hillary did. The fact that they showed a video from the 80s of him talking about Fidel Castro in order to paint him as a commie in the middle of a debate and he didnt lose a lick of support speaks volumes about the theory that 'merica wont vote for a "democratic socialist". Anyone who would legitimately fall for that smear already thinks that anyone besides Trump is a full on Communist. And since literally every poll showed him doing far, far better than Clinton - who won the popular vote by 3 million - well.....

Here's a video of a bunch of Trump voters from West Virginia cheering Bernie as he calls for Universal Healthcare
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whxM34M94SE

At this point, I think you're just projecting your resentment because Queen Hillary lost.
>>
Phineas Dredgebun - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:01:06 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.389433 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389412
>>Polls that show Clinton would have beat Trump in a landslide
>>But the polls weren't properly conducted to begin with
So are you saying polls are right, or wrong? If polls mean nothing, then there's no point in talking about polls with reference to who would have won.

If you don't want to think about polls, just think about it logically. How many conservatives actually wanted Trump to be the candidate at the beginning of the primaries? A small amount, less than 50% to be sure, and everyone griped about it. However, since they couldn't agree on anyone else, he won, and then alllll those people who had spent more than a year talking shit on him more or less immediately fell into line.

The only argument Clinton supporters could substantially offer as to why they were voting for Clinton was not because they necessarily supported her policies more (the liberal electorate is significantly farther left than the centrism she represented) but simply because she 'could/will win' and 'was electable.' Since THOSE facts are the ones that are manifestly false, most of the people who voted for her did so under false pretenses, and so if the media hadn't been pushing that narrative about her (that she is electable/ that she WILL win) then the primaries may well have taken place differently (not to mention the much more shadowy stuff her campaign/DNC did) and then you can be assurred that the general democratic electorate would have fallen in line behind Bernie even faster than republicans did behind Trump.

Moreover, the matchup between Trump and Clinton was always going to be a slam dunk. New guy vs person who has been in politics for years. Knows nothing about politics vs career politician. No track record of government work vs decades of bumpy track. Now all those same things are also true about Bernie, but the dynamic is total different because Clinton and Trump are both corporatists and so actually their argument is more stylistic than substantive, whereas Bernie is both ideologically and in personality the absolute antithesis of Trump. 'Crooked Bernie' would not have stuck, nor would have the 'Fake News' narrative (since the left media would be just as speechless and confused after a Bernie victory as the right media was after Trump's (primary) victory.) Trump wouldn't have been able to lead Bernie around the room by the nose during a debate -- he wouldn't have fallen for the obvious ploys like Clinton did. He would had a message about jobs, which was the number one issue and which Clinton completely forgot about. He wouldn't have run a negative identity politics based campaign, he would've cut right past that shit. When 'grab her by the pussy' came out he wouldn't have spent weeks talking about how misogynistic Trump is, he would've talked about putting Americans back to work. And most critically, Comey could not have said an extremely damning thing about him just a week before election day. If you don't think all of that is enough to change 70,000 votes in three rust-belt states (where his base was strongest) then you're kidding yourself.

About polls: no one ever came to a consensus that polls aren't real. That was you idiots. Here's the thing about making polls for an election; they are entirely relative to your anticipated turnout. No matter how carefully you conduct the polling of each individual, when you determine what sample of the population to get data from, you have to do it based on the distribution of people you believe will actually vote on election day. The only data you have to get an idea on that statistic from is past elections, so polls about elections can only ever be as accurate as that election hews to the turnout norms of past elections. The quantity and distribution of turnout in this election was so drastically skewed that no one could have predicted it, and probably no one will ever be able to predict it if it should happen again, because it was certainly anomalous.

So there's no other possible way to conduct polls. If you think we shouldn't have polls at all because of this, well, I can't help you, that's just stupid.
>>
Hannah Sumblebury - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:04:16 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.389434 Ignore Report Quick Reply
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-popular-politician-in-the-us-bernie-sanders-fox-news-poll-2017-3

Meanwhile in reality, multiple polls showed Hillary with only a 3 point lead give or take 3 given margin of error. With that in mind, the polls accurately predicted exactly what happened in the election. Over to Bernie, most polls gave him a 10-15 point lead against Trump. Trump and Bernie both campaigned against the TPP, so it's hard to see Bernie losing in the Rust Belt like Hillary did. This was about the anti-establishment and who was the most anti-establishment. Trump was a poser, or the Regressive Populist, while Bernie was the true progressive populist. It was easy for Trump to out establishment Hillary, but very hard against Bernie as America favors Bernie's policies overwhelmingly. Bernie is the face of American ideals that even Republicans agree with him.

Bernie is an old fellow so maybe Tulsi Gabbard will be his protege.
>>
Edwin Turveyshit - Fri, 17 Mar 2017 16:07:18 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.389435 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389433
>When 'grab her by the pussy' came out he wouldn't have spent weeks talking about how misogynistic Trump is, he would've talked about putting Americans back to work.
As evidenced by the fact that he did just that at that point in time.

It should also be noted that many of the "wrong" polls were still within the +/- margin of error.
>>
Martha Billerkedge - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 15:26:57 EST ID:DLnSfaoh No.389551 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389435
Which ones?
>>
Isabella Ceblinghall - Sun, 19 Mar 2017 20:11:41 EST ID:Kt73vXZm No.389563 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388515
If they mobilize black communities in the South and actually help them get registered and to the polls in real numbers, they could really chip away in certain parts of the South.

Not to take for granted, of course, but black voters are reliably Democrat in most cases, and the South has the largest portion share of black voters as part of the total state population of any part of the country.

A lot of time it's a matter of logistical (Working multiple jobs so no time to vote/Family only has one car to go anywhere so they can't make it to the polls) issues or lack of voter education (Not registered, don't know their precinct, etc.)
>>
Frederick Bunstone - Mon, 20 Mar 2017 02:30:56 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.389571 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389563
Unfortunately, there's more to it than that especially in the South. Black people are quite mobilized and naturally have a much stronger racial consciousness than in other parts of the US, but have virtually no representation on state legislatures. Thus they will always be gerrymandered into oblivion. Honestly I don't see the political situation in the South changing for at least several more decades, it may be irredeemable into perpetuity. Source: from the shithole in question
>>
Clara Fuffingwell - Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:46:39 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.389823 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490391999270.jpg -(63217B / 61.74KB, 600x434) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
To recap:

> Muslim ban: Trump (L, 0-1)
> Muslim ban II: Trump (L, 0-2)
> Wiretapping: Trump (L, 0-3)
> Russia: Trump: (L, 0-4)
> ObamaCare: Trump: (L, 0-5)

Sick of winning yet? Hah!

I'd say his budget is a sure loser too. We'll have to see how Tax Policy shakes out.

AND ALL WITH DEMS HAVING NO POWER IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES! HOLY SHIT!

And this isn't even counting the Secret Service getting turned down an extra $60 million to pay for guarding Melania because she refuses to live in the White House, taking Trump golfing every weekend in West Palm Beach, and protecting the Trump Children as the jet around getting rich for themselves.
>>
Reuben Cublingson - Fri, 24 Mar 2017 17:48:40 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.389824 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490392120000.jpg -(271361B / 265.00KB, 620x428) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389823
>>
Hugh Cimmlefack - Fri, 24 Mar 2017 23:54:16 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.389854 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389341
He's suggesting Bernie would not have won in a landslide (a lie) because it doesn't fit his narrative that this nation will never embrace socialistic policies. Despite the fact that Bernie is supported by both sides and surveys show that around 70% of America agrees with his views.

Eventually we'll follow the lead of other nations with our power and finally catch-up.
>>
Lillian Docklefud - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 08:25:16 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.389988 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389854
>Eventually we'll follow the lead of other nations with our power and finally catch-up.
Who the fuck are you trying to catch-up to? Hopefully not Canada, or South America, or the Middle East, or Asia, or like half of Europe, because they're all doing pretty shitty where as we're still on the up-and-up.

>Despite the fact that Bernie is supported by both sides and surveys show that around 70% of America agrees with his views.
>70% of America agrees with his views
>His (naive, marxist, anti-capitalist, un-historic, un-economic) views.

That's funny, because I've never met an American who likes Bernie and isn't like under the age of 25. So, you know, pretty much nobody actually experienced or educated.
>>
Eliza Blushway - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 08:53:18 EST ID:BRv0D0mL No.389989 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389988

>half of working people in America live below the poverty line and can barely afford to live
>WE ARE DUH BEST
>>
Y9 - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:20:54 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.389994 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389989
That's their own fault for wasting their money on phones, I know this to be an incontrovertible fact because I tried to talk to a poor person once and he was on his phone.
>>
Lillian Docklefud - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 09:57:23 EST ID:X8esPtoC No.389995 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389989
>Sarcastic 'we are the best' line, as if that's some sort of argument.

Nigga, I hope you understand that, in order to be in the top 1% of income earners in the entire world, you (only) need to earn $32K. In other words, almost every single working American is in the top 1% of the world. Poor people here are richer than wealthy people in huge swathes of the world. And we enjoy luxuries you won't find anywhere else outside the USA/CA/Europe, including luxuries you won't find in Europe, like spacious living and low taxation. Not to mention our health care is of the absolute best in the world; why do you think it's not dirt cheap or socialized?

But please, continue to joke about how we should be following the example of other countries. It just furthers my belief that anti-American folk don't actually have any idea what they're talking about, which is essentially always the case.
>>
Frederick Bungold - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 10:41:32 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.389997 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389995
>in order to be in the top 1% of income earners in the entire world, you (only) need to earn $32K. In other words, almost every single working American is in the top 1% of the world

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/10/goodbye-middle-class-51-percent-of-all-american-workers-make-less-than-30000-dollars-a-year.html

>Poor people here are richer than wealthy people in huge swathes of the world.

You realise that relative wealth =/= standard of living?

Having a dollar that's worth more than another country's dollar doesn't mean anything to the individual if they're not spending that dollar in that other country. If you're living in America where everyone else uses the same dollar you do, then it's just a dollar.

This is just basic common sense. Playing games with numbers doesn't make a homeless American better off than a rich African.

>Not to mention our health care is of the absolute best in the world; why do you think it's not dirt cheap or socialized?

http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-care-ranked-worst-in-the-developed-world/
>>
James Chebberterk - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 11:42:36 EST ID:YPXyZD9K No.390000 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490629356556.jpg -(33064B / 32.29KB, 392x297) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I think that the biggest problem with the last election is that everyone just assumed Hilary Clinton would win. Outside of your bubble there are a lot of bigoted folks in America, and I suspect the dismissive attitude might've lead to a methodlogical flaw in the polling. Why bother going door to door with pamphlets if Clinton is polling at 55%? I had two Trumpetters who come around my neighborhood to talk last year.

This protest war is stupid and everyone is so triggered. Print out some pamphlets and go around being really nice and objective, and explain to people why political correctness is important. There were studies done: that when people hear some sort of suggestion even if it isn't true, they are more likely to believe it. Hearing people in high places make suggestions about the incompetency of, say, the mentally handicapped, frailing their arms like they have palsy while giving a speech in order to mock, well, that leads to a crapsack world across the board and not just for the accountants who have palsy.

I suggest that you actually talk to people and not be so triggered.
>>
Martha Doshwug - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 16:09:37 EST ID:JKMWoRr9 No.390008 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389997
also the most expensive

>389995
wanna tell me why pharmaceuticals coming out of the same factory range so wildly on price based on the country they are being sold in?
>>
Lydia Weblingway - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:02:09 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.390017 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490648529166.jpg -(9160B / 8.95KB, 182x277) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>390000
It was only a 70k vote margin that Trump won by. I think it shows the tyranny of the minority from very specific, gerrymandered locations. It's all about targeted advertising and the GOP did a great job of slandering Hillary in exactly the right places right before the election. Their electioneering is impressive even if their policies are not. The democrats could learn from it, but they're ideologically more adverse to things like gerrymandering and slander.
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:04:53 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.390018 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390017
>GOP did a great job of slandering Hillary
>implying her whole career wasn't self-advertised slander
>>
Lydia Weblingway - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:12:32 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.390019 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490649152166.jpg -(124852B / 121.93KB, 1484x1205) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>390018
Oh, ha ha.

Your opinion of Hillary aside, generally she had a favorable approval rating until the dissemination of specific information by Comey. The GOP really hooked onto that event and managed to defeat her by propagandizing it, an act of skillful electioneering.

I'm not a fan of Clintons or Bushes or any political dynasties, it's just a simple evaluation of how a favored candidate got torpedoed skillfully. She had a huge lead and allowed it to slip by not staying on top of the opposition.
>>
Caroline Pockbury - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 18:10:41 EST ID:FDjCmqg8 No.390023 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390019

I'm tired of this line of reasoning. The fact that it was close enough to sway during the last months is shameful, and entirely the fault of the Clinton campaign. She was up against a reality tv star, g-list celebrity, huckster.

Comey's shenanigans may have moved out that last percent, but the fact that the campaign thought "stay the course" was a good message, at a time when people can't pay their bills or rent, did far more to move the needle through the course of her campaign. They were deaf to that, and they were deaf to all the voices telling them they were losing ground in the rust belt. They ignored what people organizing on the ground told them because it didn't fit their computer model.

All this blame shifting. I don't know if the party establishment just still doesn't get they were out of touch, or if they just don't want to admit it.
>>
Archie Digglepatch - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:26:56 EST ID:FAew+SZj No.390026 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390018

>implying Hillary herself said she wanted to start WWIII
>>
Charlotte Fanderhene - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 19:44:13 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.390028 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390026
I mean, she never said that, but she has said a lot of shit over the years in regards to foreign policy that is troubling to say the least. In the 08 campaign she flat out said if elected, she would go to war with Iran. Then there's the whole no fly zone over Syria crap. I followed her tenure as Secretary of State and her actions led to me deciding that I would never, ever vote for her if given the chance.

That said, anyone who thought Trump would be better on foreign policy is a fucking retard or a bloodthirsty warhawk. Can't believe people were seriously acting like Trump was the peace candidate.
>>
Phyllis Goodman - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 20:30:31 EST ID:DiXMKba0 No.390031 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490661031126.jpg -(129829B / 126.79KB, 960x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
yeah fuck Trump in general but, Hillary can miss me with that warhawk shit. There's a certain baseline level of hawkishness in the US political establishment—you saw how quickly Obama broke all the peaceniks' hearts (the ones who pay attention at any rate), and our most esteemed comrade Senators Sanders and Warren are in their states' defense contractors' pockets—but Hillary is an interventionist even by those standards. I'm wondering whether we'd have been in Iran or Syria first, had she won.

On the other hand, if shit pops off in Korea or the South China Sea it'll be 100% Trump/Bannon's doing. That motherfucker is ready to fight the Crusade that Dubya never got around to.
>>
Hannah Cemblemidge - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:08:59 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.390033 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>389988
>looks at ID

oh.

Bernie was up by 10-15 points against Trump had he won the primary... but you aren't interested in facts... so I don't know what to tell you.

No one loves Trump more than the uneducated or conspiracy lovers.
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 21:26:47 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.390036 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490664407072.jpg -(38318B / 37.42KB, 636x435) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>390023
If the Democrat voterbase got their shit together and guillotined hillary for fucking over bernie with the DNC last summer then y'all would have had it made.

But nope, let's not let the lemmings realize that. Better blame the russians and trump. I'm half convinced this Russia bullshit is as much a distraction to the left for reasons i just stated as it is to undermine trump.
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:13:07 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.390038 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490667187646.png -(55070B / 53.78KB, 750x436) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I wonder if this will get reported on like every other trump tweet, or ignored
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:14:01 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.390039 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490667241990.png -(64246B / 62.74KB, 765x435) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Well, /pol/?
>>
Hannah Cemblemidge - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 22:18:42 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.390041 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390039
Even if any of that true, right now he is the president. More distraction. Trump doesn't understand truth.
>>
Reuben Pickworth - Mon, 27 Mar 2017 23:17:04 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.390047 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390038
No one is saying it's illegal to do business with Russia. It's illegal to do business with Russia, secretly, for the purpose of getting them to do something illegal, benefiting from that relationship, and then lying about it. It's a classic Trump distraction maneuver.
>>
Charlotte Gicklewed - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 00:43:42 EST ID:EZyxEX00 No.390049 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390047
>No one is saying it's illegal to do business with Russia. It's illegal to do
>business with Russia, secretly,

Liberals, Democrats were compared to commies, Russia, anything communist for decades.
Now suddenly all is good and fine. Even Putin was called a great strong leader, and Obama weak.

If I'm not mistaken Putin was the head of the KGB until 1999. KGB was kinda scary back when huh?

The so-called cold war never bothered me, Regan spoke of it a lot, now I do worry.
We have an Republican party that just as well be our worst enemy. More than Russia,
communism ever has been.
>>
Phyllis Goodman - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 02:48:37 EST ID:DiXMKba0 No.390054 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390049
>seeming to imply having been politically aware during the Reagan administration
Now just hold on now, are you 40+ years old and on 420chan? No judgment, I had just assumed we were all of us older millenials or very late Gen X.
>>
George Smallwill - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 10:44:57 EST ID:Vwoc9qnJ No.390063 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490712297446.jpg -(169901B / 165.92KB, 1484x1247) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>390039
lol aside from trumpettes even trump himself is still trying to play the buhbuhbuhHILLARYDOE card.

dude, it doesn't matter. she lost. you're president. your actions are not going to be judged purely in reference to hillary anymore. that's why your approval rating is so fucking low.

pic related. trump is now already more hated than obama ever was.
>>
Albert Cheddletutch - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 11:39:24 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.390064 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490715564206.jpg -(126633B / 123.67KB, 800x607) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>390039
>>390038
>I wonder if this will get reported on like every other trump tweet, or ignored

It was reported on by pretty much everybody. Reporters delieved it with a straight face, smirked, and then continued on to Nunes' continual tampering with the Russia Investigation.

Most likely this is "Wiretap 2.0" another attempt to throw off the Russia investigation narrative. Remember, Trump's natural instinct is to counter-attack, or most often, counter-sue when in trouble.

He's a con-man, so there's no reason this stuff should be taken seriously or believed, as the news media it starting to learn. This is obviously a huge problem, as he's the Boy Who Cried Wolf so there's a danger that if something really bad/dangerous happens he's not trusted or spouts conspiracy theories or fake news lies.

His army of Trumpkins will jump on this band wagon quick to help him and push the fake news monolith forward, but with his approval rating cratering his audience and supporters are dwindling quickly.

Also the Uranium thing has been explored, it's bullshit.
>>
Hannah Cemblemidge - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 12:09:14 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.390065 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490717354595.png -(105971B / 103.49KB, 1904x358) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>390064
I really hope our trump friends can see the light. I don't begrudge them. They were just conned.
>>
Reuben Pickworth - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 17:39:04 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.390076 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390065
Link to this thread? I want more butthurt reactions but I went looking for it on 4skin and already regret it...
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 19:37:35 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.390090 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390064
>Also the Uranium thing has been explored, it's bullshit.

Care to expand upon that without hand waving?
>>
Henry Panningridge - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 20:24:26 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.390092 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490747066116.gif -(966362B / 943.71KB, 500x374) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>390090
http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/
>>
James Cummerworth - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:18:08 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.390093 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390064
>with his approval rating cratering his audience and supporters are dwindling quickly.

Are they though? There are some indications that around 43% of the US are now pretty much Trump All The Way followers.
>>
Soviet Psychonaut - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:30:20 EST ID:2TfYxlWB No.390097 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390092
>it's bullshit
>oh wait turns out we handed over the uranium anyway

Get fucked faggot. Your kind claims trump is in bed with the russians, our alleged mortal enemies, yet the previous administrations had zero qualms about forking over the means of mass destruction to said enemies.
>>
Archie Dangertetch - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 21:33:39 EST ID:WQQ+NOb5 No.390099 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390093
well, his approval rating is at 36% now, so that would be pretty bad

>>390097
lol. calling people names doesn't changes facts. fuck off.
>>
Graham Pimmersug - Tue, 28 Mar 2017 22:36:13 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.390102 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390076
Not sure. I'm a member on David Pakman Show and it was posted by a member on the circlejerk. It's the only circlejerk I go to because they actually post important info.

Just expect more hate the following months. The denial on the threads are in full throttle but more are breaking through. It might as well be a cult.
>>
Esther Grandstock - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 00:14:22 EST ID:0B9qh6RW No.390103 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490760862141.png -(148481B / 145.00KB, 1800x820) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>390097
>yet the previous administrations had zero qualms about forking over the means of mass destruction to said enemies.
Is that what people think this is?
Strategically, neither America nor Russia need American mines to have access to uranium.
America has Canada and Australia, Russia has Kazakstan.
>>
Beatrice Mellerhall - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 04:12:41 EST ID:Tcte88KQ No.390108 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390093
fuck you faggot, you're so stupid. Oh my god.

Read >>390099
>>
Eliza Worthinghood - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 05:11:12 EST ID:GlyKxanU No.390109 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390054
Speaking of Reagan, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Eb49BNl5zg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts3KzfIYVmQ

People who post like you look like you are confusing yourselves, aside from whatever you are talking about
even moteso. Learn to use these >>
>>
Eliza Worthinghood - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 05:50:50 EST ID:GlyKxanU No.390110 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390097
>>it's bullshit
>>oh wait turns out we handed over the uranium anyway

>Get fucked faggot. Your kind claims trump is in bed with the russians, our alleged mortal enemies, yet the previous
>administrations had zero qualms about forking over the means of mass destruction to said enemies.

Russia has and produces enough uranium, if that meltdown tweet was about after your pathetic healthcare loss.
In fact Russia is the only country that produces polonium
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8tJzsFEq8M

Just for more info https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polonium

Russia has enough radioactive material to go around, Just grab a shovel. It all right there in Trump buddies back yard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WGUbfzr31s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LN2V4DsP0s
>>
Eliza Worthinghood - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 06:06:26 EST ID:GlyKxanU No.390111 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390103
>>yet the previous administrations had zero qualms about forking over the means of mass
>>destruction to said enemies.

>Is that what people think this is?
>Strategically, neither America nor Russia need American mines to have access to uranium.
>America has Canada and Australia, Russia has Kazakstan.

It is hard to decipher but, I believe trump meant that hillary gave Russia the means to build nuclear weapons. Well it has been kinda known for some time that they are a fairly capable nuclear power. In fact they have missiles trained on us right now. Tuimp and these people are the closest thing to triggering an attack.

This came after their 'healthcare' loss. They just go completely fully insane at the drop of a hat.
Crackheads are more stable, just on average.
>>
Samuel Hingerhood - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:23:22 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.390133 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490801002528.jpg -(178491B / 174.31KB, 600x703) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>390090



What's "Hand-waving?" Is that some Alt-Right meme-fag phrase the kids are using?

Ok I'll explain it, but if you don't know something that was debunked months ago you need to get out of your Right Wing Media bubble. People who believe this tripe are the same convinced Clinton is in the chain-of-command to tell Special Operators to "stand down" from halfway across the globe. Not to mention the retards who believe that #Pizzagate shit.


> In 2010 the stockholders of a Canadian mining company, Uranium One, accepted a bid from the Russian nuclear-energy agency, Rosatom, for a majority of their shares. Uranium One took the deal in a a completely legal free market take over.

> Uranium One was a worldwide producer. Among its assets were some U.S. uranium mines equal to about 20% of U.S. uranium production capacity. (This is where Trump got his 20% number)

> The decision was taken by pension-fund managers, other institutional investors and private investors from Canada, the U.S., Europe and elsewhere. The deal had previously been approved by company management and independent directors on the board.

> Hillary lacked the power to "approve" this sale, she was however one of 14 people on the US Government Committee that might have intervened. (The others on the committee included: the secretaries of the Treasury, homeland security, energy and defense; the White House budget director; the attorney general; and the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

> Others who could also have intervened in the deal included the independent US Nuclear Regulatory Commission as well as Utah's nuclear regulator and regulators in Canada and elsewhere.

> Nobody intervened. They could have if they thought the deal was trouble.

> Russia doesn't have the licenses to export uranium outside the United States. So I'm sure the idea is that Hillary packed Uranium into a suitcase to hand off to Russian agents for cash, probably on her was to personally kill Ambassador Chris Stevens. Russia can't even touch this US Uranium in reality.

> Russia's main interest was in Uranium One's assets in Kazakhstan.

> Reminder: RUSSIA DOESN'T HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO EXPORT URANIUM OUT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I wanted to reiterate that for the dumbest among us, aka Trumpkin dumbfuck rubes who believe Hillary legit sold US Uranium to Russia like in a suitcase for a duffel full of cash.

And finally, remember the origin of this story is a hit-job book called CLINTON CASH designed to damage Clinton during the election (think the SWIFT BOAT stuff from 2004). They make not even circumstantial claims between the timeline of Russia buying Uranium One (which took place slowly from 2007 - 2013) and various people who donated to the Clinton Campaign. It's all super tinfoil shit that barely passes a sniff test let alone any actual investigation legal or otherwise.

The main "link" of this phony conspiracy is via Frank Giustra, a Canadian mining financier and donor to the Clinton Foundation. Giustra's sold his company UrAsia to Uranium One when it was still Canadian owned, and then cashed his shares in when Russia began the merger with the company. This was in 2008 when Hillary was still running against Obama and nobody knew she'd lose and become Secretary of State anyway.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-inaccurately-suggests-clinton-got-pai/

http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/17/14649980/trump-clinton-russia-uranium

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/26/the-facts-behind-trumps-repeated-claim-about-hillary-clintons-role-in-the-russian-uranium-deal/?utm_term=.18887430adee

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/16/trump-claims--falsely--that-clinton-gave-russia-20-of-us-uranium.html

Trump is once again being stupid here. His "Wiretap" tweet opened up a can of worms on his ass, so the last thing he should be doing is asking people to investigate Russian business ties to ANYBODY since he and so many of his cronies are incredibly exposed right now. Just tody Cyprus announced it had been investigating Manafort for laundering money from Russia through their banks.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/manafort-linked-accounts-cyprus-raised-red-flag-n739156
http://thehill.com/policy/international/europe/326222-manafort-probed-for-money-laundering-report
https://www.axios.com/manaforts-finances-in-cyprus-triggered-investigation-2333926928.html


Trump's approval ratings are cratering because people are coming around to the fact they've been conned by a mediocre snake-oil salesman. This Russia stuff is going to just get worse and worse, as soon as they can get Rep. Nunes from doing his best to protect Trump from the shit storm that's coming.
>>
Samuel Hingerhood - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:25:05 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.390134 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390076

Just google 4ch#n and the post ID # 118123246 and it comes right up.

https://boards.the future.org/pol/thread/118123246
>>
Samuel Hingerhood - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 11:40:14 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.390136 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1490802014528.jpg -(27831B / 27.18KB, 634x302) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>390111
>This came after their 'healthcare' loss. They just go completely fully insane at the drop of a hat.

It's more Nunes' bizarre behavior where he:

> Held a press conference claiming he had proof Trump was wiretapped but didn't reveal the info. Because he didn't have it yet.

> Went to the White House and met with an individual who gave him this information. He also briefed those under investigation on the state of the investigation, which is super shady.

> Held another press conference at the White House.

So it was blatantly obvious that Nunes leak/source was the White House themselves. Rep. Schiff then says that the connections between the Trump Campaign and Russia are "...more than circumstantial."

So Trump counter-attacked which is his go to move. The problem is he does it impulsively so it often fails. Another step closer to an independent investigation.
>>
James Cummerworth - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 17:33:51 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.390145 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390136
Well, the counter-attack worked. The investigation has ground to a halt and Nunnes is 100% Team Trump...
>>
Nicholas Himmerstidging - Wed, 29 Mar 2017 19:15:39 EST ID:9pvClxwN No.390147 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390145

Actually no, it failed monumentally since it didn't distract anybody. Not sure if you saw today but Warner & Burr came out today and said the Senate is taking over since the House investigation has been comprised by Nunes.

Nunes is getting shredded by Republicans on the Hill and his cover up and lies just adds more fuel to the fire. This is moving forward, and the trend lines are deeply bad for the Trump Administration. Can't wait for Nunes' source to be revealed since it's in the White House visitor logs.
>>
Polly Dimmleville - Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:04:35 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.390205 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390134
Thanks! Here some more gems from that thread:
>>he was an idiot was clear from the start, everybody knows. Still the sjw tears and the smug attitude of hrc being crushed was great to watch. Even if she would have been a better president.
>>I really don't care if USA goes to shit, it was worth the trouble.
>>Muh hillary WWIII. Muh fucking Mars psy ops. You know the red dragon from Revelation is like 6 months away from Virgo yes
>>Trump was put into power by our vote because we know he is going to be the worst president ever. It all part of the plan of people that really love this country
>>
Matilda Crennergold - Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:28:00 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.390212 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390205
Great.
Political Nihilists with Suicidal Ideation.....
>>
Esther Bardbanks - Thu, 30 Mar 2017 17:35:36 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.390213 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390212

For real. They legit celebrate electing a "meme" and a troll as POTUS. Some are ideological, but most are just GIANT cocksuckers.
>>
Jack Himmerstock - Thu, 30 Mar 2017 21:01:59 EST ID:Z7Na6ELH No.390216 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390205
>Defends everything Trump does with "muh liberals, muh SJWs!"
>Finally runs out of excuses "W-we planned this all along!"

The state of that board.
>>
Ebenezer Tootshaw - Sat, 01 Apr 2017 11:23:19 EST ID:U+RrbYh4 No.390280 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390065

69TH DIMENSIONAL MAHJONG
>>
Sophie Clayville - Sat, 01 Apr 2017 13:48:40 EST ID:uR9+BrFh No.390284 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390213
Tbh, I'd predict that a large part of users of channel 4 are underage. I refuse to believe any grown ass man would actually spend so much time on bullshit like "kek sjws" and pepes.
>>
Jarvis Bunway - Sun, 02 Apr 2017 00:47:46 EST ID:wPIzNzTk No.390300 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390284
refuse to believe it all you want, there are legions of dumbasses of voting age and above
>>
Hamilton Drisslepene - Thu, 06 Apr 2017 18:32:05 EST ID:ocfgTAf6 No.390469 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390284
Basket of deplorables isn't just a meme.
>>
Caroline Bozzlehone - Thu, 06 Apr 2017 19:49:03 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.390472 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1491522543592.jpg -(87231B / 85.19KB, 740x389) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>389331
>the South
Doesn't prove shit.

Bernie was a no-name outsider from the extreme North faced with developing a brand from scratch in the extreme South. This would be challenge enough in any election, but Bernie also had to do this in the face of a media apparatus doing everything in its power to ignore him and deny him that name recognition as much as possible. A media apparatus that gave him significantly less airtime than the other major candidates despite his rallies and level of enthusiasm being so much larger than almost anybody else's. A media apparatus that was also revealed to be working closely with the Clinton campaign. A media apparatus that tried as hard as possible to pretend that superpredators and welfare reform and mass-incarceration didn't exist. A media apparatus that ignored his demonstrable history of on-the-ground civil rights activism in solidarity with the black community, the only candidate in the race to get arrested fighting for black rights. If the media had given pic related the coverage it was due, at the time it was due, things would have turned out quite a bit differently. But they refused to acknowledge his existence except to throw shade, and anyone who isn't an idiot knows why. The same reason why the DNC had to be practically forced at gunpoint to start hosting some debates - and even then, always on the least visible days of the week, and never very many of them in total. How convenient for a candidate with established name recognition.

All of that in the most uneducated, demobilized, corrupt and conservative region of the country, a region that is always at least one step behind the rest of the culture both culturally and politically. This is the part of the country that needs the MOST time to listen and learn and digest enough to make an informed decision about the candidates but - surprise of surprises - it's the region that has some of the earliest primaries in the country. And the DNC made a big deal about how hard they were pushing early voting this year, which just exacerbates the built-in advantage that status quo legacy names get in that part of the country.

None of which even matters because the South wasn't going to and didn't vote for the Democrat candidate anyway. Just like everyone knew that they weren't. For a variety of reasons that should be obvious to anyone, the South has nothing to do whatsoever with determining who a strong Democratic candidate would be for the rest of the country. But the region skews heavily conservative, and the backwardness of the area inherently favors established candidates, so frontloading these Southern states early in the primary has been a decent-enough way for your ilk to give status quo conservatism an artificial boost in directing the narrative of the race. As if the rest of liberal America dances to the tune of fucking Mississippi, of all places. It's a trick, and it means nothing when it comes to the general election, but it keeps the left from getting a primary foothold and you guys needed to somehow portray the Jewish civil rights activist as the candidate for white privilege (?????), so this is what you have to work with. But it's transparent nonsense that doesn't accurately reflect the mood or preferences of the electorate and these sorts of tricks are only going to get less and less effective going forward.

>Wow, you're an insufferable little cunt bag aren't you?
How should I put this? "It hurst [sic] because you know we're right."
>>
Augustus Turveybanks - Thu, 06 Apr 2017 21:29:50 EST ID:XqOr0TAj No.390486 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1491528590782.jpg -(471375B / 460.33KB, 3264x2448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Haven't been on in a while. Just want to weigh in that Bernie would have won. The only way I could see Bernie losing is if the media suddenly decided that Trump wasn't all that bad and started shilling for him because he was going to give them a huge tax break. Which IMO was actually fairly likely but goes against his anti-establishment vibe.

But every Clinton peasants' reason I've heard for Bernie being a bad candidate despite being the most popular politician in the US is insufferable. Every state Clinton won in the general Bernie would have won (except VA) plus he would have carried MI, WI and had a better chance at OH and PA than Hillary did.
As for him loosing the primary, let's not beat to death the blatant DNC and MSM involvement. Bernie was turning out new voters. Clinton was turning out none. Remember all those voters getting turned away or given provisional ballots at the primaries? That wasn't because of some DNC conspiracy, those were people who hadn't voted in decades because they hated every DNC candidate for decades. But the Clinton supporters are ok with ignoring those voters because they I guess they don't want more voters for the DNC or something.

That's really what amazes me about Clinton people, they almost entirely approve of every one of Bernie's policies but won't support that platform because they think it's a losing platform. But then continue to insult and spit on millions of potential radical supporters by adopting a platform that's meant to be a compromise with the opposition but then insult the oppositions voter base by labeling them all ignorant racists.

For real, do you want universal healthcare? Single Payer? Public Option? Medicare Expansion? Then you can't keep supporting politicians like Clinton, Perez, Booker, Schumer etc. They're never going to do it. And all this talk about how you got to play the game is bullshit when it comes from people getting their asses handed to themselves from all sides.

> The DNC base has shifted but the DNC refuses the acknowledge that.

/rant
>>
George Tootfield - Thu, 06 Apr 2017 22:34:31 EST ID:8I3ViJfk No.390491 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390486
>The DNC base has shifted but the DNC refuses the acknowledge that.
It's not just that. Even worse, the majority of democrats at the national stage are democrats in name only these days.
>>
Cyril Pockford - Fri, 07 Apr 2017 13:27:55 EST ID:ZwZilEKt No.390547 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390486
>And all this talk about how you got to play the game is bullshit when it comes from people getting their asses handed to themselves from all sides.
Think of the implications of this line of thinking in the context of this last election:
Either Clintonites are so overwhelmingly stupid and incompetent that they lose on the reg to "neophytes" and "deplorables" despite the advantage of knowing "how to play" the game...
Or they really are losing on purpose.
>>
Jarvis Dribbernudging - Tue, 11 Apr 2017 19:20:10 EST ID:nMDrW1Dn No.390762 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390547
The democrats hold no MILITARY influence. They keep pulling their pistols, but their gun ain't loaded!
>>
Jarvis Dribbernudging - Tue, 11 Apr 2017 19:21:46 EST ID:nMDrW1Dn No.390763 Ignore Report Quick Reply
what the hell are a bunch of nebbish lawyer dweebs supposed to do against the united might of the US Military? People on the left are afraid to even OWN guns, so what chance do they have of fighting for their own freedom?
>>
Jarvis Dribbernudging - Tue, 11 Apr 2017 19:23:06 EST ID:nMDrW1Dn No.390764 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Yeah, some of the people on the left are idiots. Hell, most of them are idiots, because most people ARE idiots. But not ALL of them are idiots.
>>
Lydia Grimlock - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:50:41 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.390767 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390763
Dude shut the fuck up.
You don't even know what words like "the left" mean.
>>
Lydia Grimlock - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 00:51:53 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.390768 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390763
Also, what relevance does that regurgitated Republican rhetoric even have to this thread?
>>
Hugh Cebberbanks - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 02:21:43 EST ID:4kLNGtGV No.390769 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390763
>thinking the liberals and the left are synonymous
https://www.redneckrevolt.org/support
>>
Phyllis Goodman - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:19:43 EST ID:DiXMKba0 No.390770 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388457
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/republican-ron-estes-wins-tight-special-election-us/story?id=46741418
Welp, another local election wasted after the DNC couldn't be bothered for $3k for a mailer. Trump won this district by 27 points, Mike Pence and Ted Cruz came out in support, the GOP spent a hundred thousand in just the last week, and it was STILL a squeaker. But an L is an L.

Fuck Tom Perez, and fuck the Democratic National Committee.
>>
Beatrice Dracklechug - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 10:38:06 EST ID:Y2X27ghh No.390772 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Don't worry guys, we don't need to change, Perez has got this!
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/04/kansas-special-election.html
>On Tuesday night, anyone who hoped the Democratic Party had evolved since Nov. 8, 2016, had those delicate hopes dashed as Republican Ron Estes beat back an unexpectedly strong challenge from Democrat James Thompson to hold onto the Congressional seat vacated by newly minted CIA Director Mike Pompeo.
>Estes won 53 percent of the vote to Thompson’s 46 percent, though polls showed the race even closer in the last few weeks. The margin of seven percentage points is a drastic change from only six months ago, when Republican candidate Donald Trump beat his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for the presidency by a 27 percentage point margin. Tuesday’s tight margin could have been closer—in fact Thompson may have been able to win. Luckily for Estes, the Democratic Party refused to invest any resources into the race.
>Tom Perez, the former president's Secretary of Labor, won the position in late February. Perez had a 50-state strategy message, just like Dean. In February, then-candidate Perez told voters in a city named Topeka in a state named Kansas that the party had failed them by not being present and ignoring them. In April, Perez told The Washington Post that, essentially, the race for Pompeo's seat in the fourth Congressional District in a state named Kansas was a waste of money. The leadership of the Democratic Party is incapable of evolution or honest discussion.
It's worth noting that Thompson is a Bernie-style progressive. Establishment Democrats would rather lose everything than allow the party base to win even the smallest of victories. Clintonbots are the best thing to ever happen to the American right wing.
>>
Ian Bloblinghood - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 11:01:35 EST ID:wPIzNzTk No.390773 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390772
Lol Democrats can't stop shitting the bed
>>
Shit Smallville - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:16:41 EST ID:+NSAEK8g No.390790 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390770
>>390772

Guys, the mainstream Democrats are incognito Republicans to try and flatten real lefties from gaining any power.

Don't blame all of us. We just need to boot the mainstream dems out hardcore to restore good will to all.

Any dumbass that goes "hah, fuck liberals" are just playing into the faux libs' game.
>>
Phoebe Hunningwater - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:24:54 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.390792 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492017894539.png -(21303B / 20.80KB, 568x303) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>390790
This.

The blue dogs and centrists have to go. The party really should run on a progressive platform, too, if it wants to be able to say it truly represents its grass roots base and the majority of its voters.

It's a little bit of a gerontocracy, as well, with a more conservative boomer leadership that doesn't reflect the majority of the left-wing base in the USA.
>>
Alice Fenderson - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 13:37:19 EST ID:T43ZgZvA No.390796 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390790
You sound a bit like the RWNJ's yelling RINO everywhere though. (not that I'm accusing you of anything). It might just be that a majority of your fellow citizens are to the right of you politically. It would then be up to you to explain to them why they should move further left.
>>
Basil Sebberwin - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:11:08 EST ID:uW9KWJtY No.390803 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390796
He's not complaining about his fellow citizens, he is complaining about his elected officials (and choice of elected officials) not accurately representing the will of the people.

I mean, in what world should the Democrats, as a party, have supported the TPP?
>>
Wesley Claydale - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:21:44 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.390804 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390796
He has a point though. I live in a town where we have Dems who seem to have policies that are GOP aligned.
>>
Phoebe Hunningwater - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:25:18 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.390805 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390804
Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin to start with. They supported Gorsuch, fucking traitors.
>>
Alice Fenderson - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:35:47 EST ID:T43ZgZvA No.390806 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390803
What I meant was that there is a segment of the conservatives who are convinced that if you only ran "a real conservative" he would win in a landslide. They automatically assume they represent the majority. The point being that one can not always assume that a majority agrees with what oneself would consider rational.
>He's not complaining about his fellow citizens
He should be, or rather, he should be explaining his points to them.
>he is complaining about his elected officials
Chosen by his fellow citizens. (how well that system works is another issue).
>(and choice of elected officials)
But not those who made the choice? how meta ;-P
>not accurately representing the will of the people.
It's up to the people to hold them accountable then.
>I mean, in what world should the Democrats, as a party, have supported the TPP?
Free trade is generally good. The problem is (particularly in the USA) they tend to be completely hijacked by corporate interests. Maybe they thought the pro's outweighed the con's and that it was the best they were gonna get. I dunno I'm Scandinavian. The Democrats would be considered mostly right wing here but they don't operate in a vacuum.
>>
Wesley Bardway - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 14:50:19 EST ID:jLZoI5pz No.390807 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390806
>He should be, or rather, he should be explaining his points to them.
No, the politicians should be explaining their positions. That is their job.

This mentality that the Dems have no responsibility to articulate their own message, and that their failure to do so is everyone else's fault for not doing their job for them, is a big part of what is killing the party.
>>
Basil Sebberwin - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 15:09:56 EST ID:uW9KWJtY No.390808 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390806
>But not those who made the choice? how meta ;-P
who do you think fields Democratic candidates, exactly? I'll give you a hint: it's exactly who the guy is complaining about.
>>
Edward Fizzlelock - Wed, 12 Apr 2017 22:05:37 EST ID:1qezcbq/ No.390818 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390805
Yep.
>>
Ebenezer Blackforth - Thu, 13 Apr 2017 11:00:42 EST ID:vCCS1XNB No.390836 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>The DNC and DCCC Confirm They Won’t Support Progressive Candidates
http://observer.com/2017/04/thompson-estes-special-election-kansas-democratic-party-progressives/
>New DNC Chair Tom Perez said during his own campaign, “A 50-state strategy is the only way forward. That starts with rural outreach and organizers in every zip code.” However, he already broke this promise with the first congressional election Democrats ran under his leadership.
>Rather than this special election representing an anomaly or misstep from the Democratic leadership, there’s a prevailing trend within the party’s establishment to select and support weak, centrist candidates who provide the party with opportunities to fundraise from corporate donors. This trend is symptomatic of a revolving door within the Democratic Party leadership, where party officials often sell out to work for Republican lobbying firms. The Intercept’s Lee Fang pointed out Mark Squier, John Donovan, and CR Wooters as just a few examples.
>Currently, in a special congressional election in Georgia to replace Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, the Democratic establishment is putting vast resources behind establishment Democrat Jon Ossoff. The former legislative assistant and filmmaker has strong ties to Rwandan dictator and Clinton Foundation ally Paul Kagame. In addition to the party’s funds, Ossoff’s pro-business centrist platform has afforded his campaign several million dollars. Democrats are hoping that their support of Ossoff will translate into a victory, which will elevate the narrative that that centrist Democratic candidates perform better than progressives, who the party continues to ignore despite their growing popularity.
Fuck Perez and fuck the party. The DNC at this point is just a money-makng scam to trick progressives into voting for Republicans in all but name. Best to let it die and build something new from the ashes.
>>
Polly Gegglestone - Thu, 13 Apr 2017 15:26:05 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.390843 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390836
Yeah. They don't even care if the lose the whole country. It is just a scam to fund raise.
>>
Jack Fanforth - Thu, 13 Apr 2017 18:08:43 EST ID:wIpYQDSS No.390848 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390836
read that as "Rwandan dictator and Clinton Foundation ally Paul Krugman" and was only half confused
>>
Phoebe Lightwell - Thu, 13 Apr 2017 22:05:35 EST ID:+NSAEK8g No.390849 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390836
See. You dumbasses thought I was crazy talking a few days back.

We really have to purge the Democratic party of the faux libs, blue dogs and Republican spies to end shit like this happening forever.
>>
Sophie Wettinghood - Thu, 13 Apr 2017 22:52:16 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.390850 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390849
But we've been saying stuff like that for a long time. How do we do it?
>>
Wesley Dartwater - Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:34:12 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.390851 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390850
Primary the fuck out of them.
>>
Simon Blackstock - Fri, 14 Apr 2017 15:39:44 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.390864 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492198784770.gif -(2872268B / 2.74MB, 200x150) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>390836
Some highlights:
https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/04/so-its-come-to-this-the-democrats-asked-veep-to-ru.html
>Top Democrats asked Julia Louis-Dreyfus to run for office.
They tried to tap Elaine from Seinfeld. Apparently the lesson Democrats took from 2016 isn't that they need to listen to their base. No, what they learned is that they need to cut the middle-man and go straight for the celebrities and rich New Yorkers. Fucking Elaine from Seinfeld, that's what's gonna take us to victory.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/13/progressive-democratic-candidates-james-thompson-loss
>By refusing to fund the campaigns of anyone but centrist, establishment shills, the Democratic Party aims to make the Berniecrats’ lack of political viability a self-fulfilling prophecy: starve their campaigns of resources so they can’t win, then point to said losses as examples of why they can’t win. If that means a few more red seats in Congress, so be it. The more they do this, though, the less of Bernie’s “political revolution” will be absorbed by the Democratic Party and the more will go shooting off into third parties and direct action.

http://observer.com/2017/04/democrats-lack-strategy-bernie-sanders/
>“Resist” has become the slogan of those who oppose Trump, but the Democratic Party has struggled to define the term. Party leaders have often pushed back or condescendingly scolded activists, comparing them to the Tea Party on the right.Facing criticism from the left, responses from Democratic Party members have ranged from begging progressives not to primary them—like Sen. Claire McCaskill—to taunting critics to find a primary challenger—like Sen. Joe Manchin. In most cases, calls to vote against every Trump cabinet nominee were unsuccessful; Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer and Senate Democrats voted in favor of most nominees.

>This disconnect between the public’s favorable attitude toward progressive policies and the extent to which the Democratic Party supports them remains immense. Instead of supporting these policies to provide a viable alternative to Trump and the Republican Party, the Democratic establishment’s definition of “resistance” has been to stand by and do nothing. As long as this remains the strategy, that’s exactly what they’ll get in return from voters.
>>
Ebenezer Bimbleridge - Fri, 14 Apr 2017 17:16:50 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.390866 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390864

Hillary got 3 millions more votes, and Dems are either winning seats or vastly closing margins.

Bernie-bros who want to "burn it all down" are short sighted. Bernie's back to being an (I) now anyway isn't her?
>>
Sophie Wettinghood - Fri, 14 Apr 2017 17:18:59 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.390867 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390866
Are you really that jazzed because in one random special election we merely lost by 7 points when we expected to lose by 27 points?
Didn't establishment Dems make the same argument during the election? 'The Democrats are already winning, why burn it all down?' How did that turn out?
>>
Jarvis Smallford - Fri, 14 Apr 2017 17:35:27 EST ID:1CbWZXh4 No.390869 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390866
>Hillary got 3 millions more votes
I understand that this is your first election and you don't know how any of this works, but it doesn't matter if you get more votes if you lose the electoral college.
>>
Cyril Bondlehone - Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:27:30 EST ID:QK8mfsjv No.390870 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390866

>short sighted

Yeah, we just have to let the democrats keep doing their thing. I think they'll enact good policies that help people.

Get fucking real.
>>
Lillian Nucklemone - Fri, 14 Apr 2017 18:45:15 EST ID:xQyPriM9 No.390871 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390866
Have I ever told you the definition of insanity?
>>
Matilda Turveyspear - Fri, 14 Apr 2017 19:05:47 EST ID:XqOr0TAj No.390872 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390866
And despite popular support she still managed to lose. How the fuck did that happen? Oh right, the entire HRC campaign never stepped foot in WI or MI or any non-metro part of OH or PA. I can't blame them though, the HRC campaign had nothing to offer them. Except higher union membership, single payer healthcare, school and infrastructure reconstruction, etc.

Here's some realpolitik for you: CorpDems have no plans, means, or intentions for winning because their donors don't want them to win. So if you, the democratic voter, actually want your party to win and not suffer under GOP barbarism then you must primary out all CorpDems.
>>
Sophie Brumbledidge - Fri, 14 Apr 2017 21:33:47 EST ID:Nla6yjir No.390874 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390869
This nation was NOT made great through mob rule.
>>
Nigel Cabberwut - Fri, 14 Apr 2017 22:23:32 EST ID:NY3ouz89 No.390875 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492223012341.jpg -(129659B / 126.62KB, 710x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>390874
Rule by the few and rural isn't how it was made great either. It was made great through increasing inclusion of more and more marginalized people, and giving them a vote. There is a strong movement against the electoral college and I think it's well founded. While it may not be just for the many to rule over the few, it is not just for the few to rule over the many. Rule must be achieved through equanimity and equality, not oligarchy, plutocracy or anarchy. I can only hope that we will be civilized enough to recognize this and reform our system before the divide becomes more serious.
>>
Shitting Creshshaw - Fri, 14 Apr 2017 23:01:55 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.390876 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1492225315316.gif -(805957B / 787.07KB, 480x360) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>390872
>So if you, the democratic voter, actually want your party to win and not suffer under GOP barbarism then you must primary out all CorpDems.
>>
Priscilla Serringtetch - Sat, 15 Apr 2017 11:40:31 EST ID:vCCS1XNB No.390880 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390866
Lol are you legit a Correct the Record bot?
>>
Samuel Blythefield - Sun, 16 Apr 2017 01:01:31 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.390891 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390880
Nah, just a poor lost shill
>>
Jack Nicklewell - Sun, 16 Apr 2017 17:48:03 EST ID:QK8mfsjv No.390923 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390874

>the person who got the most votes winning an election
>"mob rule"

What a fucking dumb thing to say.
>>
Basil Clummerwone - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:26:21 EST ID:MBZ+rwoO No.391104 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390923

Pretty funny right?

Well end of the day they got their way and they prevented the majority from winning the election. Thank God, too, because look at how great Trump is doing... LOL
>>
Basil Clummerwone - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 19:28:41 EST ID:MBZ+rwoO No.391106 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388479

Doesn't matter, anyone with half a brain in the democratic party leadership knows two things.

  1. Her own party isn't going to unite behind her

2. There are too many insane conspiracy theories about her for her to have a chance reaching out to centrists or conservatives

It's a waste of time to try running Clinton again because by the time election day rolls around, half of the country will end up believing that she eats babies and runs a pedophile club out of a restaurant again.
>>
Nigel Paddlefoot - Thu, 20 Apr 2017 20:12:14 EST ID:WQQ+NOb5 No.391108 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391106
this isn't about clinton. the problem is the the party leadership will run the same platform even though the electorate does not like it.
>>
Ernest Bonkinlidging - Fri, 21 Apr 2017 13:32:53 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.391126 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>390923
>What a fucking dumb thing to say.

It's literally why the Founding Fathers of the US chose representative democracy, and and electoral college.

The electoral college wasn't suppose to be a rubber stamp on the states vote, it was designed to keep people like Donald Trump from becoming President. It's a fail.
>>
Reuben Brookforth - Fri, 21 Apr 2017 16:54:18 EST ID:Z5u3SrSH No.391131 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391126
>It's literally why the Founding Fathers of the US chose representative democracy
That doesn't change the fact that it's a fucking dumb thing to say. Maybe, without the benefit of 300 years of hindsight, it was a slightly less dumb thing to say from the self-interested perspective of the slavers and financiers and hucksters that comprised much of the Founding Fathers.

But for a powerless nobody like you, who will always be considered part of the lowly mob they sought to arbitrarily constrain? It's an incredibly fucking dumb thing to say.
>>
Matilda Pettingfere - Thu, 27 Apr 2017 14:59:34 EST ID:iD8kFnx6 No.391398 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>388457
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-was-heath-mello-thrown-under-the-bus/
Perez, Clintonbots and the DNC smear the Democratic candidate for a major mayoral race in Nebraska.

Why? Because he's backed by Bernie and Our Revolution.
>>
Lillian Blythegold - Thu, 27 Apr 2017 15:22:03 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.391399 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391398
The DNC are lbasically the definition of "controlled opposition".
>>
Nell Hashdale - Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:18:01 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.391426 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391398
>Why? Because he's backed by Bernie and Our Revolution.

It was because he's pro-life. Don't make shit up.
>>
Phyllis Sicklebatch - Fri, 28 Apr 2017 15:53:10 EST ID:ixqOA5lP No.391428 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391426
>implying that's somehow a better, or even good, reason for his own party to smear him
to add to that specious claim, Mello has, just last week, said that he “would never do anything to restrict access to reproductive health care” and earned a 100% approval rating from planned parenthood in 2015 [1].

This is not the way to punish him for something he did 10 years ago, especially when the primary is over and he won. Not having a lifetime of voting explicitly pro-life is not a hill democrats should be dying on, especially in a local election in OMAHA, NEBRASKA. Abortion is not something on the radar of single issue voters, in places with as many religious people as Omaha. You'll probably find many registered Democrats there who are pro-life...

Clinton actually beat Trump in Omaha. This is not the way to follow up on that momentum.

1 - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/omaha-mayoral-candidate-under-fire-says-he-would-never-do-anything-to-restrict-access-to-reproductive-health-care_us_58f8e868e4b018a9ce590a84?ncid=APPLENEWS00001
>>
Eugene Cludgebanks - Fri, 28 Apr 2017 21:08:17 EST ID:Yh0dEBHV No.391448 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391428
Excellent points. The Dems have an unfailing ability to fuck themselves silly. They did it with Schumer's "Coastal Plan." They do it by having this insane reluctance to support anyone running in a red state. They do it by clinging to Clintonism like it has a future.

Really fucked up. On the way to being a one party country....
>>
Eliza Gemblebanks - Fri, 28 Apr 2017 21:13:02 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.391449 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391426
>It was because he's pro-life.
But had no intention of forcing it on others. Just like Tim Kaine. Mainstream Dems - including many of these current critics of Mello - were perfectly happy to accept that compromise when doing so was to Hillary's advantage back when they thought they were going to win lol
>>
Isabella Fobblecocke - Sat, 29 Apr 2017 10:48:44 EST ID:VNxoT+zz No.391455 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493477324610.gif -(118397B / 115.62KB, 172x257) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Students despise Obama policies...when credited to Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7x7UPsttTY
>>
Fucking Turveybury - Sat, 29 Apr 2017 14:47:40 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.391456 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391455
Except that 90% of the times they disagreed it was because they said it didn't sound like something he would do, or while it seemed good there would be a catch or it would be used primarily to benefit himself or people like him. Which are all things that come from the fact that he is Trump, and which makes the same policy a different thing under Obama.
It's like, do you trust having open heart surgery by a doctor? Yes? Ok, well do you trust having open heart surgery by a lunatic from the street? No? Well then you're a hypocrite who doesn't really want open heart surgery in the first place!
>>
Eliza Gemblebanks - Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:02:21 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.391461 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391456
>open heart surgery as an analogy for presidential policy
lol you are really terrible at this nb
>>
Hedda Pitthood - Sun, 30 Apr 2017 01:37:18 EST ID:QK8mfsjv No.391465 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391455

Yeah, for some reason people think Obama isn't dogshit. It's like if a republican fucks them over, they expect it, but when the democrats pull the same shit and slap a smiley face on it, everyone goes to sleep.
>>
Cyril Gevingdon - Sun, 30 Apr 2017 10:39:09 EST ID:0B9qh6RW No.391470 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1493563149030.png -(76476B / 74.68KB, 1375x729) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>391465
>It's like if a republican fucks them over, they expect it, but when the democrats pull the same shit and slap a smiley face on it, everyone goes to sleep.
"They're both bad, so vote republican"
In the context of democrat vs actual leftist, the democrat looks like shit and is less effective at making the people more productive, the economy better, and giving the people and state more leverage where corporate interests conflict with American interests.

But outside primaries, when the alternative is not someone with better policy but a republican, whose stated and practiced policies are directly harmful to nearly every American, even most self-serving democrat is a shining paragon of statesmanship and virtue.

Supporting the lesser evil sucks, but not doing so gave us Donald Trump.
>>
Simon Drengerridge - Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:44:42 EST ID:WQQ+NOb5 No.391473 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391465
Democrats were protesting Obama for things like the tpp and his use of drone strikes and others. It happened more than 1 week ago though, so everyone has forgotten it and just adds in whatever memories are convenient for the argument they're trying to make at the moment.
>>
Phoebe Nicklelock - Sun, 30 Apr 2017 11:55:53 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.391475 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391465
This is how we can tell who the interlopers are on this board, btw. If you had spent any appreciable amount of time here at all you would remember us pissing and moaning at Obama for constantly drone striking folks and not doing more to end the drug war and a little someone called Edward Snowden.

No, but keep telling us how you assume that we just so happen to conform to every stereotype the future has about the rest of the internet. It's not revealing at all. nb
>>
Clara Gagglebirk - Sun, 30 Apr 2017 15:52:33 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.391479 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391461
The dumbass whose brain hasn't developed symbolic logic capacity strikes again.
>>
Oliver Wollyman - Sun, 30 Apr 2017 21:21:21 EST ID:i1eo8CqX No.391490 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391479
Very clever, but your analogies still suck though. You getting embarrassed and tearing up and lashing out doesn't make your analogies suck any less. Writing better analogies will make your analogies suck less.

Let us know if you need any more persuasive writing advice. nb
>>
Hannah Murdworth - Tue, 02 May 2017 19:52:26 EST ID:Z7Na6ELH No.391561 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391490
Please explain how is analogy fails anytime.
>>
William Chunkinlere - Wed, 03 May 2017 08:27:15 EST ID:xxKoAEbr No.391571 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391561
You really need someone to explain to you how studying for a decade to become a licensed professional in a hard-science field is different from a winner-take-all popularity contest in which any rando over a certain age is allowed to participate?

This is the kind of brainpower that you want associated with the Democratic party?
>>
Caroline Crorringdock - Wed, 03 May 2017 09:45:16 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.391576 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391571
Are you incapable of answering the question? It seems like you're trying to avoid having to do so...
>>
Oliver Firrypon - Wed, 03 May 2017 11:27:45 EST ID:Z7Na6ELH No.391581 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391571
Great job dodging the question.
>>
Oliver Devinghetch - Wed, 03 May 2017 14:08:55 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.391589 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391428

I didn't imply it was better, I was giving you the actual reason so you could stop with the wilting-flower Bernie bro victimization shit.
>>
Charles Pinningtare - Wed, 03 May 2017 15:31:13 EST ID:kXkaFVu/ No.391590 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391589
where do you see "wilting-flower Bernie bro victimization shit" in that post? (>>391428)

you're the problem with the democratic party today. any criticism you see, you just attribute to some "bernie bro" boogieman than come to the realization that the party is forcing a platform on a base that it just doesn't jive with. the party would rather publicly call out a mayoral candidate who has a real shot at beating a republican incumbent in a red state than support him.
>>
Angus Buzzville - Wed, 03 May 2017 15:51:03 EST ID:8MIJwHiU No.391591 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391576
>>391581
He did answer the question. You're just being intentionally thick, and it's not fooling anybody. Nobody can be so overwhelmingly stupid that they need the difference between medicine and politics explained to them more than once.

Nb for the most truly retarded thread derailment I've ever seen on this board.
>>
Samuel Tootshaw - Wed, 03 May 2017 15:52:17 EST ID:wCbmVqz0 No.391592 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391571
That is absolutely not the point, and you are intentionally missing the point to back up meaningless rhetoric. Do you need someone to explain to you that there are people who will have different levels of skill at any profession, whether they need a decade of study or any rando above a certain age can do it? And that because there are different levels of skill, for any profession, there are some things that you would trust someone at a high level of skill to do, that you wouldn't trust someone at a low level of skill to do?

Trump has a low level of skill as a statesman, so I would trust him less to enact the exact same policy as I would trust a highly skilled statesman like Obama. You *can* follow that idea, it is at a kindergarten level of simplicity at this point, so any further attempts to manufacture incredulous misunderstanding on your part is going to be completely transparent.
>>
Lydia Hamblenack - Thu, 04 May 2017 00:31:10 EST ID:sMjBd+5i No.391595 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391591
K, so you wouldn't want someone who has no medical experience preforming surgery on you, but have no problem with someone who has no expetience of any sort in governing, governing your country?

Talking about how medicine and politics are different fields intentionally ignores the point. Which is that you generally don't want people with no idea what the hell they're doing in charge of important, life or death tasks.
>>
Doris Sunkinshaw - Thu, 04 May 2017 11:40:48 EST ID:I3FnSNZB No.391601 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391590

You have to go back to the original claim he made >>391398

>Perez, Clintonbots and the DNC smear the Democratic candidate for a major mayoral race in Nebraska.

>Why? Because he's backed by Bernie and Our Revolution.

He was playing the victim AGAIN. The big old bad DNC ruining the chance at the Revolution EVERY American wants but won't vote for.

When really the candidate was getting push back because he's personally pro-life. That's it, no Conspiracy against Bernie bullshit.

>you're the problem with the democratic party today. any criticism you see,

You're a fucking moron.
>>
Esther Sucklestock - Thu, 04 May 2017 11:57:08 EST ID:kXkaFVu/ No.391602 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391601
>You have to go back to the original claim he made >>391398
That's a different post, from a different person, making a different point.

>You're a fucking moron.
...and you're calling me a moron? lol. nicely articulated defense of your stance there.

interesting how all you've done is attack other posters and haven't contributed to the discussion about how the democratic party is alienating its voter base by pushing a platform that they don't believe in, and would instead rather attack candidates that actually have a shot of defeating incumbent repub- oh.
>>
James Goodhall - Thu, 04 May 2017 12:41:31 EST ID:z4vzqjx9 No.391608 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391601
>When really the candidate was getting push back because he's personally pro-life.
And yet this didn't seem to be such a dealbreaker when Clinton picked Kaine as her VP, despite him walking basically same path as Mello. The article made that clear, were you the type of person that actually reads articles. In fact, many of these same critics were perfectly happy to defend Kaine from the exact same criticisms.

All during the election cycle, whenever someone questioned Hillary's hawkishness or Wall Street ties, establishment Dems cried about "purity tests". Whenever someone pointed out one of Kaine's conservative stances, cries of "party unity". Whenever someone questions the party's steady rightward drift over the past decades, it was "strategic" or "pragmatic" to reach across the aisle, better to compromise and win then maintain purity and lose. Bernie was a monster for elevating his "single issue" above all else. "The perfect is the enemy of the good" and all that.

But when it comes to anything having to do Bernie? Purity must be maintained, party unity be damned, no compromise on this single issue, who cares if we win, anything less than perfection on this issue isn't good enough. Suddenly ideological purity trumps pragmatism.

Whether this is due to conspiracy or simple idiocy, this is transparently contradictory behavior that perfectly illustrates why the Democrats have become such a failure of a party.
>>
Lillian Creblingforth - Thu, 04 May 2017 13:36:23 EST ID:9k6SLa8o No.391610 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>391608
>"The perfect is the enemy of the good" and all that.

Man I hate that stupid fucking line. The idiots who parrot it are making "not as bad" the enemy of "better".


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.