random . . . randomness

It kind of reminds me of a nice kid being bullied.. they don't like you.. you suck! why can't you make them like you.. wack wack wack..yeah we know you're nice.. we know you work hard.. we know you're ready.. we know you're qualified..wack wack wack. why can't you just be more "likable"… and we know the world will be OK with you as president and with the other person its a roll of the dice.. hey lets go with the other person! we don't like you nice kid but just be yourself… we don't like you but be yourself!! wack wack wack..you're trying to hard to make us like you and we just don't… wack wack wack.. why can't you be yourself more…we don't like you..wack wack wack

is the problem the kid being bullied or the people wacking the kid?

There is no other way to put it: the American people made a historically poor choice which in any other democracy would have still resulted in Hillary winning..unfortunately in our fucked up system the candidate with 3 million more votes is the loser. Stop looking for reasons to blame Hillary or the democratic party. This one is on us as a people. We fucked up… and now we pay for it and wack wack wack her some more cause it sucks?

hutch wrote:
I find you to be parroting the prog wing line of the democratic party…the base of the democratic party are not socialists… as far as not energizing people .. I was energized.. I don't know…Nate Silver feels she actually energized more democrats and had more support in the democratic base than Sanders…

So admittedly, I work in the progressive left (though outside the Democratic Party). I fundamentally believe that the Democrats would be better if they ran progressive candidates, supporting labor above capital and just in general changing their relationship .  I think that picking lefty wing populism over Wall Street dollars would be a good move for Dems in the short term and definitely in the long term. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/democratic-party-rich-thomas-edsall.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fthomas-b-edsall&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection  I also believe that Corbyn's success supports this. 

hutch wrote:
I thought she ran a great campaign…

I at least was completely uninspired by Hillary (as well as Obama 2).  Almost everyone I know in my orbit felt the same way. 

hutch wrote:
by all measures Hillary shredded Trump in these areas.. now maybe they don't matter…which brings us to the final point

This is why I'm arguing that those are not the measures that matter now.  That what matters now is enthusiasm, because the electorate has become so partisan. 

hutch wrote:
my personal opinion is that she was done in by two factors: Sanders who hung on for months tearing her apart

Sanders was far nicer to Clinton than any of the Republicans were to Trump (and than Hillary and the Dems were to him).  She was so fragile that you think that hurt her but you want to tell me she was a good candidate?  He didn't even go after the emails.  I actually think she would have been better served if he had gone after the emails and cleared it off the deck. 

hutch wrote:
This one is on us as a people. We fucked up… and now we pay for it and wack wack wack her some more cause it sucks?

No question I think the American people made the wrong choice.  Still, the job of the Democratic Party is to win elections.  The Democratic party needs to win elections in the future.  That means we can't just say that this one is "on the people" and not look for things that the Democrats can do better in the future. There is too much at stake for that.   

gavroche wrote:

hutch wrote:
This one is on us as a people. We fucked up… and now we pay for it and wack wack wack her some more cause it sucks?

That means we can't just say that this one is "on the people" and not look for things that the Democrats can do better in the future. There is too much at stake for that. 

of course we can.. why can't we? it is on the people.. that doesn't mean that we can't do better in the future… but i find the post election autopsy facile…. we have no way of knowing how a socialist like Bernie Sanders would have done…we can't assume because she lost that the problem was that she wasn't Bernie or progressive enough… I happen to think Donald trump is a very skilled politician and bully… . to think that he wouldn't have picked Bernie apart and emasculated like he did with Rubio, Cruz, Jeb, and Hillary etc etc seems to me to not be necessarily supported by the evidence…Bernie might have done better in the rust belt.. sure.. but he might have done worse in other states…

and basically every post-mortem i have seen departs from a false premise: that Hillary was a terrible candidate.. I don't think the evidence bears that out I'm sorry to say…every post-mortem departs from the same conventional "wisdom" that Trump was such a terrible candidate that hillary to lose to him must have been even worse..just hugely flawed..otherwise how could she lose to Trump? But Trump wasn't a terrible candidate.. he just ran a terrible campaign..they are not necessarily the same thing…But Jeb lost to him, Cruz..Rubio and you can go on down the list.. the point is that Trump while a complete ass-hat was contrary to conventional stupidity an appealing candidate.. what does that say about the American people? We can't escape that thorny issue.. and how do we deal with it? By becoming demagogical?

I can tell you that the democratic party needs to change its stance on immigration for example..but the progressive wing of the party is even LESS likely to do so than Hillary, Biden or the establishment… why are we spending so much energy standing up for illegal immigrants?? My parents are legal immigrants and most legal immigrants I know have no sympathy for illegal immigrants.. I could go on… we don't need to be demagogical but we do need to be a little bit more realistic…

the point is the emerging conventional wisdom on what the democratic party needs to do is flawed.. and yes I think if we want to win elections having the democratic party being presided by a Muslim is a little bit of a reach.. I'm sorry..what else should I conclude??? and yet it is the Bernie progs that were so into Ellison…heck for me Hillary even having Huma Abedin around her all the time was a mistake (and she did arguably end up costing her the election.. with her husband happening to be the little weiner).

I'm tired of hearing democrats beat down Hillary.. .I don't like it.. I did everything I could for her.. maybe if other democrats hadn't been so busy posting shit like "oh no we don't want to pick between the lesser of two evils" or "hey there are just the same".. HOW QUICKLY WE FORGET!! THIS IS WHAT BERNIE PEOPLE WERE SAYING OR DO YOU FORGET GAVROCHE??? Fuck man I remember on twitter bernie people comparing Hillary to Hitler.. BERNIE PEOPLE MY FRIEND NOT REPUBLICANS

So is this the default political thread now? Woah, VA rednecks at the polls full force today, making the Republican primary surprisingly close.

Anyone know Scalise's stance on the 2nd amendment?

excontradiction wrote:
Anyone know Scalise's stance on the 2nd amendment?

too soon?

Space wrote:
So is this the default political thread now? Woah, VA rednecks at the polls full force today, making the Republican primary surprisingly close.

well the elect trump thread didn't seem to fit…so here it went
we should have a political thread

that was close for ed gillespie

yikes…80-100 shots fired at a morning baseball practice
yea guns…give em to everyone…we'll be safer

Somethibg i been thinking for a few months…..we are slowly heading towards civil war

word is…. the shooter was james t hodgkinson from belville Il and a strong bernie supporter (the team was all Republicans)

hutch wrote:
Somethibg i been thinking for a few months…..we are slowly heading towards civil war

thanks, for that mental picture now stuck in my head.  ugh.

the most fascinating, and worst, thing about depression . . . is that it tricks you into liking it, so that you never want to get rid of it.  like, Julian.

herman wrote:
the most fascinating, and worst, thing about depression . . . is that it tricks you into liking it, so that you never want to get rid of it.  like, Julian.

That's no trick; I'm legit great.

Thank goodness there is an ignore feature on here now. 

If I ignore someone, can they still see my posts?

unless they ignore you back they can see and reply to all your posts but you cant see their replies so its kind of idiotic


Like hypothetically you could post something trashin tupac and somebody you are ignoring could post something like i havent read something so stupid since killsally was smokin the chronic…but you wouldnt see that

I think that is how it would work

Kemosabe wrote:
Thank goodness there is an ignore feature on here now. 

Yeah, its made the board 300% better.

Yes, wrote:
Yeah, its made the board 300% better.

I bet; I already added two people to my list.

Kemosabe wrote:

Yes, wrote:
Yeah, its made the board 300% better.

I bet; I already added two people to my list.

Just two?