Why did the Democrats lose the election?

[Tiassa]

boogie boogie | take a bite

Click for something completely different.​

But to answer your question: I believe your baised and contrived interpretation of what bernie said and then extrapolation that all the black voters interpreted it as "delegitimizing" them and hence they did not voter for him is a fantasy of your hateful imagination that easily takes anything anyone that you don't like said and re-interprets it to mean they are pure evil. Hence why you ignore how Hillary called black youth "super predators" and approved of sending hundreds of thousands of blacks to prison on draconian and 13th amendment loophole slavery crime laws, yet then interpret bernie making excuses for his southern loses as "delegitimizes black people".

Okay:

• "baised and contrived interpretation of what bernie said" ― The problem with this argument is that it overlooks where the delegitimization question comes from. Your cheap and lazy dismissal is also ineffective.

• "extrapolation that all the black voters interpreted it as ‘delegitimizing’ them and hence they did not voter for him is a fantasy of your hateful imagination" ― Without some actual analysis, this is just a figment of your imagination. Again, cheap and lazy.

• "that easily takes anything anyone that you don't like said and re-interprets it to mean they are pure evil" ― Something about your hateful imagination goes here.

• "Hence why you ignore how Hillary called black youth ‘super predators’" ― See #3382289/215↗; it's the first of a string of related posts, but the part you're whining about is in that one.

• "and approved of sending hundreds of thousands of blacks to prison on draconian and 13th amendment loophole slavery crime laws, yet then interpret bernie making excuses for his southern loses as ‘delegitimizes black people’." ― You're going to have to learn to explain yourself, someday. In the meantime, the idea that black voters in the South somehow distort reality is itself a distortion of reality. "Black reality" isn't some separate, mysterious, novel reality we grant occasional recognition and favors. Kind of like "female reality" isn't some separate, mysterious, novel reality compelling some men to tell women to stop moaning about shit. One need not be―how'd you put it? oh, yeah―"pure evil" to fuck such points up.​

As to my objective, you really need to get over your straw men. When you say, well, stuff like this―

As for the black voters of the confederacy, yeah they choose poorly too.

―you're going to need to remind us again why they should vote for the guy who thinks their votes distort reality. Just, you know, as a practical matter.

And if you're going to lose your shit that badly over it? Well, we might notice that after all that, you still can't actually answer the question.

Tiassa a pig boar is now president, a bad joke nightmare is now reality, I no long give any fucks what you think. You behavior is part of what cost us the election. Take a moment and imagine we were talking IRL and you were trying to convince me to vote for Hillary, do you think calling me a racist would get that done?

I don't think you get it: If the price of your vote is my support for racism, I don't want it.

Are you capable of comprehending that? If you're so sensitive about a lack of praise for your advocacy of racism, there's not much I can do for you.

Sorry, no. It's going to make someone feel bad to have to admit there is no Ferguson effect. It makes people feel bad to address the problem if the problem affects black people. Just like it makes people feel bad to address the problem when the problem affects queers. Just like people freak out about the prospect of addressing the problems affecting women. In the end, it's going to make supremacists feel bad to lose their supremacist privileges. Sweet-talking and empowering them only further empowers them. If you can explain, in some practical terms, just how giving over to the bullies makes bullying go away, any time in your advocacy for supremacist bullying would have been a fine time to make the point. But you can't.

At the end of the day, solving the problem requires acknowledging its dimensions. In matters of human justice, this acknowledgment will inevitably make someone, somewhere, feel badly for the fact that other people think supremacism is wrong. Look, there's just no way around it. Just the idea that comparing consenting homosexual conduct to diverse forms of rape, including the desecration of children, animals, and corpses, is somehow homophobic offends someone, somewhere. (Maybe Kentucky?) The proposition that a woman's employer does not have the right to tell her doctor what health care she is or is not entitled to offends someone, somewhere; we fight Supreme Court cases about these notions. And take racism. People say, "But police need to be able to defend themselves!" And, you know, that's kind of a straw man because who, really, is saying they shouldn't? But the argument overlooks the underlying problem, when dark skin itself is a criterion of danger that must necessarily be protected against. And discussing that will offend someone, somewhere. There is no way around it.

Here's an example: There is an ongoing discussion in society about the proper time and circumstance for a man to walk up to a random woman somewhere and hit on her. I was absolutely astounded, recently, encountering an associate who got downright sniffy about it: He ought to be able to approach any woman in any way he considers appropriate and she somehow owes it to him to accept his noble context; that is, she doesn't get to decide if he's being creepy or not. But think about it for a moment. Take all the politics and snark out of it and look at a basic, functional, human question: Who gets to decide their own reality? Honestly, it's only because she's a woman, and women are disempowered. And changing that fact will offend someone, somewhere, because there just isn't a way around the aspects that offend some of these men. That is to say, we cannot solve these problems without offending, quite frankly, a considerably large number of men.

The fact remains that you can't explain how your pandering to racism and racists will, as a policy adopted, end racism. We don't end racism or sexism or any other supremacism by empowering it.

And if you're trying to convince me that accommodating supremacism is the price of your vote, it's true, I don't want it.

You're willing to tell me to show sympathy to the supremacists. What's your argument to put before the subject classes? What do you tell women? What do you tell people of color? Their human, civil, and constitutional rights must wait because why?

I would say look what happened↗ in Kentucky↗ (twice↱), except you've made it quite obvious, already, that you don't care. Still, though, it's a practical challenge: Okay, we want to win in Kentucky, so, right. Marriage equality is off.

How do you think that will affect the Democrats, overall? Let's call it off, so Democrats can win Kentucky. Hey, do you think if we chum the women, Democrats can win Texas? What do you think it will take to win Tennessee and Louisiana?

So go ahead and say those last two paragraphs are ridiculous. Please. Great. Still, though, I've noted before↗ that some people will even go out of their way to find excuses to feel offended; it's worth noting you haven't ever really prescribed any boundaries to your sympathy for supremacism.

But that's the thing; I think you don't address those boundaries because you don't really want to.

And that's just the thing. If showing supremacism that kind of accommodation is the price of your vote, I just don't want it.
____________________

Notes:

Benen, Steve. "Kentucky voters hoping for a broken campaign promise". msnbc. 14 December 2015. msnbc.com. 28 January 2017. http://on.msnbc.com/2jH8w5E

Deutsch, Barry. "Trial". Ampersand. 19 January 2017. LeftyCartoons.com. 28 January 2017. http://bit.ly/2j73Tpq

 

[ElectricFetus]

"baised and contrived interpretation of what bernie said" ― The problem with this argument is that it overlooks where the delegitimization question comes from. Your cheap and lazy dismissal is also ineffective.

"extrapolation that all the black voters interpreted it as ‘delegitimizing’ them and hence they did not voter for him is a fantasy of your hateful imagination" ― Without some actual analysis, this is just a figment of your imagination. Again, cheap and lazy.

"that easily takes anything anyone that you don't like said and re-interprets it to mean they are pure evil" ― Something about your hateful imagination goes here.

Yeah I don't see this argument going anywhere if you keep spinning things around and around.

"Hence why you ignore how Hillary called black youth ‘super predators’" ― See #3382289/215↗; it's the first of a string of related posts, but the part you're whining about is in that one.

How about a link that is not your drivel? Evidence not sophism? Anyways I see nothing in their acknowledging what Hillary said and did. Let me make this simple: give me a list of the things Bernie said, did and approved of the deligitmized blacks, and then lets compare it to a list of things Hillary did to deligitmize blacks and see who did worse?

You're going to have to learn to explain yourself, someday. In the meantime, the idea that black voters in the South somehow distort reality is itself a distortion of reality.

No you need to explain where you got this idea that blacks voters in the south somehow distort reality? They liked Clinton more, yeah, and, so? They know her better, they are more conservative and religious and less inclined to listen to a radical jew. Most of all people are fundamentally stupid and incapable of making good choices, that is how we ended up with are choices being Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Anyways they made their choice, we all did and now we must all suffer the singular reality of that choice.

"Black reality" isn't some separate, mysterious, novel reality we grant occasional recognition and favors. Kind of like "female reality" isn't some separate, mysterious, novel reality compelling some men to tell women to stop moaning about shit. One need not be―how'd you put it? oh, yeah―"pure evil" to fuck such points up.

I don’t know where you are going with this, I think you just want to make this an argument about prejudice? Frankly you lost me at this point.

I don't think you get it: If the price of your vote is my support for racism, I don't want it.

Ahh yes this I can understand, perfect, ok great: So you rather lose then? We now have President trump because people like you could not compromise! You see Bernie as racist and hillary as not, I can’t help that you’re delusional with hate, but because your stubborn we must all suffer? Simple question: who is more racist in your mind: Trump or Bernie?

See when Hillary won I sucked it up and voted for her, campaigned for her, because I wanted to win, would you have done the same had Bernie won the primary?

Are you capable of comprehending that?

No it is drivel that proves nothing and accuses me of racism and spin and spin.

Sorry, no. It's going to make someone feel bad to have to admit there is no Ferguson effect. It makes people feel bad to address the problem if the problem affects black people. Just like it makes people feel bad to address the problem when the problem affects queers. Just like people freak out about the prospect of addressing the problems affecting women. In the end, it's going to make supremacists feel bad to lose their supremacist privileges. Sweet-talking and empowering them only further empowers them. If you can explain, in some practical terms, just how giving over to the bullies makes bullying go away, any time in your advocacy for supremacist bullying would have been a fine time to make the point. But you can't.

So again you rather we be ruled by a white supremest president pig boar huckster moron, Trump, so that you can continue “making people feel bad”. I’m pretty sure now that they mobilized and got their pig lord as president they feel better, and nothing you can tell them will change that. Maybe had they lost because you actually tried to WIN rather than moralize they would feel bad and reflect on their racism and bullying?

At the end of the day, solving the problem requires acknowledging its dimensions.

No it requires winning elections, proposing bills and getting laws changed, you can acknowledge what ever you want, without ACTION and POWER it results in nothing, nothing at all.

 

[ElectricFetus]

In matters of human justice, this acknowledgment will inevitably make someone, somewhere, feel badly for the fact that other people think supremacism is wrong. Look, there's just no way around it. Just the idea that comparing consenting homosexual conduct to diverse forms of rape, including the desecration of children, animals, and corpses, is somehow homophobic offends someone, somewhere. (Maybe Kentucky?) The proposition that a woman's employer does not have the right to tell her doctor what health care she is or is not entitled to offends someone, somewhere; we fight Supreme Court cases about these notions. And take racism. People say, "But police need to be able to defend themselves!" And, you know, that's kind of a straw man because who, really, is saying they shouldn't? But the argument overlooks the underlying problem, when dark skin itself is a criterion of danger that must necessarily be protected against. And discussing that will offend someone, somewhere. There is no way around it.

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? What do you want to offend voters?, ok now we have trump as president, are you fucking happy?

Here's an example: There is an ongoing discussion in society about the proper time and circumstance for a man to walk up to a random woman somewhere and hit on her. I was absolutely astounded, recently, encountering an associate who got downright sniffy about it: He ought to be able to approach any woman in any way he considers appropriate and she somehow owes it to him to accept his noble context; that is, she doesn't get to decide if he's being creepy or not. But think about it for a moment. Take all the politics and snark out of it and look at a basic, functional, human question: Who gets to decide their own reality? Honestly, it's only because she's a woman, and women are disempowered. And changing that fact will offend someone, somewhere, because there just isn't a way around the aspects that offend some of these men. That is to say, we cannot solve these problems without offending, quite frankly, a considerably large number of men.

Again you would rather have “grab her by the pussy” trump as president because … ? This drivel has nothing to do with winning elections, and is precisely why we lost, regressive leftist like you going on about the sexism of how some PUA hits on women, did not click with the middle class voters who have bigger more general concerns.

The fact remains that you can't explain how your pandering to racism and racists will, as a policy adopted, end racism.

Aah, Yes I can: By having liberals in charge they will institute laws and polices that will help uplift the blacks, the women, the gays, etc, it is that fucking simple.

We don't end racism or sexism or any other supremacism by empowering it.

How is us losing to the likes of trump not “empowering” it?

And if you're trying to convince me that accommodating supremacism is the price of your vote, it's true, I don't want it.

Well I’m not going to arguing with what you count as “supremacism” your delusion and sophistry is impenetrable... but once again I will try: you rather have president trump than try to appeal to more voters by focusing on the mutual and much more objective suffering of impoverishment and economic stagnation? You think someone being called a faggot or some women being hit on is comparable to the millions of Americans living in poverty, people dying because they can’t afford medicine, endless debt and no future other than practical slavery to the rich oligarchs that control us? If I had to choose between being called a fagot and have to deal with obnoxious suitors AND having free medical care, a higher wage, infrastructure, debt forgiven, a future, OR having neither. I would choose the former! Now instead we get the calls of faggot, the “hey baby nice tits” AND no healthcare, no wage increase, more debt AND what ever horror trump will bring down on us, because you could not make a simple value judgment on what is more tangibly important.

You're willing to tell me to show sympathy to the supremacists. What's your argument to put before the subject classes? What do you tell women? What do you tell people of color? Their human, civil, and constitutional rights must wait because why?

Because there rights to medical care, food, water, shelter, come first? Now they will get neither AND they will get their pussies grab by the president of the united states on top of that, all thanks to you!

I would say look what happened↗ in Kentucky↗ (twice↱), except you've made it quite obvious, already, that you don't care. Still, though, it's a practical challenge: Okay, we want to win in Kentucky, so, right. Marriage equality is off.

Yeah your links, explain how it relates to marriage equality for me?

The supreme court overrides state law, gay marriage is legal… of course now with what ever trump puts in as judge we will see how long that last won’t we? Again what is more important: us not having president trump, us having a liberal majority in the supreme court upholding gay marriage, OR you getting to call people homophobes?

How do you think that will affect the Democrats, overall? Let's call it off, so Democrats can win Kentucky. Hey, do you think if we chum the women, Democrats can win Texas? What do you think it will take to win Tennessee and Louisiana?

We don’t need to call it off, what ever IT is, all we need to do is make economic reforms for the middle class our primary issue, this would have got us enough votes despite having these other issues that the middle class white voters give no fucks about. And then we could have done it all.

This is not about selling plungers to people that don’t want plungers (and self-righteously “hurting their feelings” by telling them they are plungerphobes), this is about selling them what they want and then throwing some plungers in as well.

So go ahead and say those last two paragraphs are ridiculous. Please. Great. Still, though, I've noted before↗ that some people will even go out of their way to find excuses to feel offended; it's worth noting you haven't ever really prescribed any boundaries to your sympathy for supremacism.

Ridiculous and offensive?, No my counter argument is that your approach has got us president trump, thanks a lot. I would take ridiculous and offensive any day to how utterly fuck we are thanks to you!

But that's the thing; I think you don't address those boundaries because you don't really want to.

Have you seen starving stunted children, people living in abject poverty, lived with these people day in and day out for two years? Yeah I give no fucks about some middle class women getting hit on by an asshole, she has the power to tell him to fuck off, pepper spray him in the face, then go off to her climate controlled apartment and blog about it while eating ice cream. Meanwhile millions of people in this country alone, go to sleep hungry, have no medical care, have no prospects, living squalor, there are women selling their bodies for heroin so they can escape this world one hit at a time in every city in America, and you think some middle class women getting hit on is the issue we should focus on? … no fuck your priorities! BIGGER PROBLEMS FIRST, ACTION NOT TALK, POWER NOT RIGHTEOUSNESS!

And that's just the thing. If showing supremacism that kind of accommodation is the price of your vote, I just don't want it.

And so you rather hand us over to Trump instead, I got it ok, geez.

 

[Tiassa]

Yeah I don't see this argument going anywhere if you keep spinning things around and around.

Funny you should say that:

How about a link that is not your drivel? Evidence not sophism?

So―

(1) You complain that I "ignore" something.

(2) I point to evidence that I have addressed it.

(3) You demand a link that is not to my address of the issue, instead.​

―that wasn't obvious.

Anyways I see nothing in their acknowledging what Hillary said and did.

See, this is the part where taking you seriously is difficult:

Spoiler

And one of the hardest things about that problem is that legitimate questions get wrecked. Take the "superpredators" controversy, for instance. Yeah, it was a really harsh line. But it didn't occur in a vacuum, nor under circumstances like we've seen in recent years; the liberal voice finding empowerment seems nearly anxious to forget the disempowered decades. There are a lot of questions about the '94 crime bill requiring answers, but those answers are harder to find when the historical context is so grotesquely skewed.

I mean, where does Rush Limbaugh come into all of this? Because we know he does at some point. Still, though, let's try Chauncey DeVega↱, first, a bit over a month ago:

From the lofty perch of hindsight, complicated public policy challenges are all too often made to look simple and easy. Bill Clinton's confused and angry response to being questioned about his role in the mass incarceration of black Americans (and what scholars such as Michelle Alexander have described as the "new Jim Crow") is a reflection of the messy politics that birthed the 1994 crime bill (The Violent Crime Control Act).

In all, if the Clintons are lost in the morass of a political swamp where they are struggling how to best explain their role in the mass incarceration of black Americans, such a predicament is at least partially a reflection of the contradictions and complexities that occur whenever questions of race, class, justice and crime intersect along the color line in the United States.​

‡​

​

The 1994 Violent Crime Control Act was born out of a moment, the mid- to late-1980s and the early 1990s, when violent crime was a national emergency. During this time period, there was panic and hysteria, and we must remember the way it was framed―the talk of the denizens of crime-infested inner city neighborhoods who would often sleep in bathtubs to avoid bullets. Crack cocaine was a monster that broke homes and families, made gangs rich, lured black boys and girls into crime, and created a generation of "crack babies"―black children who were destined to be learning disabled, physically handicapped, and as they matured, would soon be trapped in an endless cycle of "ghetto culture" of poverty, crime and drugs.

The "super-predators" Hillary referred to were black street pirates without a moral code or any sense of restraint. It was rumored that some of them even smoked "illies" (marijuana laced with embalming fluid, PCP, and/or cocaine) that made the user even more crazy and dangerous. Hillary Clinton wanted to bring these black "thugs" to "heel." Donald Trump ran ads in newspapers demanding that the four black and one Hispanic teenager who were arrested for allegedly raping a 28-year-old old white woman in New York City's Central Park "be forced to suffer and, when they kill, they should be executed for their crimes. They must serve as examples so that others will think long and hard before committing a crime or an act of violence."

Popular culture is central to public memory. The moment that produced Bill Clinton's 1994 crime bill also inspired drug and gang themed movies such as "Boyz n the Hood," "Colors," "New Jack City" and "Deep Cover."​

‡​

​

The most extreme critics of Bill and Hillary Clinton and the 1994 crime bill depict the two as waging a war on black folks, unleashing a racist carceral society that placed many thousands of non-violent black offenders in prison and jail. In this narrative, if the punishing and punitive state is one of the primary features of a racist and classist America, then the Clintons ought to be public enemy No. 1 for black people.

It is true that the Violent Crime Control Act (and a 1996 "welfare reform" bill that actually increased extreme poverty) was certainly part of an intentional move by Bill Clinton and other "New Democrats" to mine white racial resentment and overt bigotry against black people for electoral gain in a political landscape where "Reagan Democrats" were coveted, and the Republican Party had hammered "liberals" for being "soft" on crime (and thus by implication too "close" to people of color).

Allowing for that fact, we must still be cautious, as an extremely narrow focus on those dynamics risks neglecting an important question. What was the role of black elites and the black mass public in the passing of the 1994 crime bill?

A flattened and distorted version of what has been demonized as "black respectability politics," where the fallen Bill Cosby and his speech on "pound cakes," "sagging pants" and black wayward youth, has made this type of intervention unpopular. Nevertheless, it remains a question and complication that should be explored.

As political scientist Michael Fortner argues in his new book, what he terms as "the black silent majority," has long-supported a "get tough" approach to crime and law enforcement. This is practical self-interest: if violent and other types of street crime are often more common in poor, low-income, and working class communities―and America is a race and class segregated society―then black and brown folks who live in those spaces are more likely to be victims of crime.​

Amie Parnes↱ reported last month expectations in the black community for a President Hillary Clinton:

The effort hit a major speed bump last week when Bill Clinton got into a public argument with protesters in the Empire State over the 1994 crime bill he signed into law. As protesters chanted "black youth are not superpredators," he defended the legislation, arguing the protesters were "defending the people who killed the lives you say matter."

Bill Clinton a day later said he regretted the comments, but Sanders has sought to make them an issue.

Independent observers say the remarks hurt Hillary Clinton, but that reservoirs of goodwill for the Clinton years will help the former first couple weather them.

"That comment will make it harder to woo younger African-Americans to her side," said Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons. "But I think older African-Americans remember how bad things were at the time."​

None of this actually settles the issue, but it does remind that we're assessing a prior period according to our own contemporary mores. The Southern Strategy flew high in the eighties. Tough-on-crime was a marketplace demand; many intrusive and controversial anti-terror policies germinated in the laboratory of the War Against Drugs. And it seems to me that by the time Snowden started releasing the stolen files, Americans had already forgotten the George W. Bush presidency and domestic surveillance controversies; how many people who were outraged by what the Snowden dump informed them legitimately had no idea any of this was ever going on before? Intrusive domestic surveillance has been around at least since the Cold War; rumors of massive listening and data gathering operations have spun and fermented and even found verification over the decades. But it's true, by the time we got to Snowden, people seem to have forgotten what happened under George W. Bush. Asking them to think back twenty-two years to the crime bill? Or thirty years to a time when the proposition that Miranda rights were themselves a grave injustice wasn't simply a viable marketplace argument but also enough in many cases to defeat your soft-on-crime liberal-commie opponent?

Yeah, you missed a bit.

This is why you have no credibility.

Let me make this simple: give me a list of the things Bernie said, did and approved of the deligitmized blacks,

That evidence is contained in posts↑ you've already dismissed without consideration↑, but it's pretty straightforward:

• "Well, she's getting more votes. A lot of that came from the South."

• "Since we got out of the South we're doing pretty well."

• "I think that having so many Southern states go first kind of distorts reality."

―Sen. Bernie Sanders↗​

Or would you rather I simply quote a couple thousand of my own words for you, again?

You're not credible.

When you're ready to put an honest, decent effort into it, let us know.

 

[karenmansker]

Entertaining explanation re: the OP . . .

 

[ElectricFetus]

Funny you should say that:

So―

(1) You complain that I "ignore" something.

(2) I point to evidence that I have addressed it.

(3) You demand a link that is not to my address of the issue, instead.​

―that wasn't obvious.

Evidence that is not you blathering, but an external link to a 3rd party, a news article, scientific journal, that kind of thing?

See, this is the part where taking you seriously is difficult:

​

Yeah, you missed a bit.

You ask me to read through piles of your blathering and the best you could quote out of it is that? Hillay's calling black youth superpredators and agreeing to incarcerate hundreds of thousands is acceptable because ____? Nope you provide no answer just long winded sophistry

This is why you have no credibility.

Oh boy I'm not credible to you, oh the horror.

That evidence is contained in posts↑ you've already dismissed without consideration↑, but it's pretty straightforward:

• "Well, she's getting more votes. A lot of that came from the South."

• "Since we got out of the South we're doing pretty well."

• "I think that having so many Southern states go first kind of distorts reality."​

―Sen. Bernie Sanders↗​

Seriously that is worse than calling black youth super predators and incarcerating hundreds of thousands of black men to fill up private prisons that also give Clinton millions in donations coincidentally?

Or would you rather I simply quote a couple thousand of my own words for you, again?

As it occurred to you that your words are not "evidence"?

You're not credible.

When you're ready to put an honest, decent effort into it, let us know.

I seem to noticed you missed the rest of my post. When you are ready to admit you rather lose to the likes of trump OR admits your tactics and priorities are suicidal wrong for liberals and have doomed us to trumps rule, let me know.

Entertaining explanation re: the OP . . .

Oh yeah Milo, how entertaining, not exactly a source of reasoning though.

 

[Tiassa]

This and That

​

Evidence that is not you blathering, but an external link to a 3rd party, a news article, scientific journal, that kind of thing?

I'm just pointing out that your statement―

Hence why you ignore how Hillary called black youth "super predators"

―is false.

By definition, your statement that I "ignore" Hillary Clinton's use of the term "superpredators" is false; as I responded↑, the part you're whining about is in that one. Having given you that link↑, what we get is a dismissal―

How about a link that is not your drivel?

―demanding something else, instead.

And here you are continuing to demand that I not give you what you demanded.

You're a troll.

• • •​

Entertaining explanation re: the OP . . .

How so?

(Edit note: Revise & extend my remarks; add longer first section to avoid consecutive posting. 28 Jan 2017, 14.56 PT)​

 

[ElectricFetus]

This and That

I'm just pointing out that your statement―

―is false.

By definition, your statement that I "ignore" Hillary Clinton's use of the term "superpredators" is false; as I responded↑, the part you're whining about is in that one. Having given you that link↑, what we get is a dismissal―

By definition sophistry is not a valid counter argument, your ACTION was to IGNORE Hillary Clinton's comment with babbling. Ok I will make it simple, in one sentence: why is Hillary Clinton's comment acceptable and Bernie's not?

―demanding something else, instead.

And here you are continuing to demand that I not give you what you demanded.

You're a troll.

Oh I must have missed that external link to real evidence and viable non-fallacious arguments, could you post it again?

It is practically deafening how you ignore the rest of my post. So this will be my new harpy call: Your inability to focus on issues relevant to working class voters, to prioritize minimum wage increase over manspreading, single payer healthcare over transgender bathrooms, basic income guarantee over catcalls, to choose the most electable candidate rather than the one that would break the glass ceiling, has now put the republicans in complete control, put a pussy grabbing pig boar huckster in charge as president, the gays, the women, the Muslims, everyone you care about as well as the demographic you could give a fuck about will now suffer because of that.

 

[iceaura]

Entertaining explanation re: the OP . . .

The reason the wingnut stuff is so often in video format is that if you write out what they say it's too obviously deranged.

He has the Democratic Party being "taken over by the left", and ascribes their loss of the white working class to this takeover. And although he can at least identify the races in the US (already a step up from his left/right yak) he hasn't got a clue about how it works (he talks about people who went to college vs those who didn't, without breaking down by race, for example. At one point he blames the "left" - by which he means some Democrats - for dividing the US up by racial categories, something that he thinks happened recently.)

And he can't handle statistics at all - something a college education can help with.

Here's a random factoid to keep in mind when listening to this guy: white people are not a majority of the working class, in the US. Most members of the working class are some category other than "white".

Here's another: voting for President on the basis of whether some city douche has hurt your feelings by calling you names is not classic American working man masculinity. It would be a new and rather odd factor to be admitting, if it were actually true - a bit embarrassing to the men involved.

And he thinks he's the gayest Nazi in history? oh dude - - - - http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/images/online_exhibitions/GoeringLG.jpg

This guy is the current culmination of the intellectually crippling media operations of the Reagan era, in which a concerted effort to equate Authoritarian with Left - the one is the other - has succeeded. He's a bubble thinker - trapped in the categories marketed by the most sophisticated and effective marketing professionals the world has ever seen.

 

[karenmansker]

The reason the wingnut stuff is so often in video format is that if you write out what they say it's too obviously deranged.

He has the Democratic Party being "taken over by the left", and ascribes their loss of the white working class to this takeover. And although he can at least identify the races in the US (already a step up from his left/right yak) he hasn't got a clue about how it works (he talks about people who went to college vs those who didn't, without breaking down by race, for example. At one point he blames the "left" - by which he means some Democrats - for dividing the US up by racial categories, something that he thinks happened recently.)

And he can't handle statistics at all - something a college education can help with.

Here's a random factoid to keep in mind when listening to this guy: white people are not a majority of the working class, in the US. Most members of the working class are some category other than "white".

Here's another: voting for President on the basis of whether some city douche has hurt your feelings by calling you names is not classic American working man masculinity. It would be a new and rather odd factor to be admitting, if it were actually true - a bit embarrassing to the men involved.

And he thinks he's the gayest Nazi in history? oh dude - - - - http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/images/online_exhibitions/GoeringLG.jpg

This guy is the current culmination of the intellectually crippling media operations of the Reagan era, in which a concerted effort to equate Authoritarian with Left - the one is the other - has succeeded. He's a bubble thinker - trapped in the categories marketed by the most sophisticated and effective marketing professionals the world has ever seen.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

 

[Tiassa]

By definition sophistry is not a valid counter argument, your ACTION was to IGNORE Hillary Clinton's comment with babbling.

Yeah, a lot of what you have to say is just make-believe.

Ok I will make it simple, in one sentence: why is Hillary Clinton's comment acceptable and Bernie's not?

Well, normally I would say that's up to each, in this case black voter, but you know better than black voters↑, don't you?

So, here, try again↗. You'll find input from black people like Chauncy DeVega, or a reporter named Aimee Parnes got a couple minutes with a guy named Jamal Simmons.

There is plenty of discussion of the superpredator question in that post; you've just chosen to keep demanding what's already there. If you had read through the post, there were plenty of links. Indeed, I noted↑ that was a string of related post, laced throughout with links to other wesites, and if you'd bothered with any of those related posts you eventually would have gotten to the part↗ where all those links are listed.

At any rate, to make it as simple as possible: It's up to each black voter, and as I near as I can figure from DeVega, Simmons, each black voter has his or her own priorities.

How about Charles M. Blow? You skipped out↑ on a post offering↑ a link to a discussion of the issue↗ that included input from Charles M. Blow.

But because you decided to ignore all that even your bogus troll tack fails; you're asking for external links and analyses that aren't mine that are already on the record.

And I don't really see the point of wasting any more time on you or your damn fallacies.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Yeah, a lot of what you have to say is just make-believe.

Yeah sure, you beleive what you want and I will beleive what I want and we all live under the rule of trump, the end.

Well, normally I would say that's up to each, in this case black voter, but you know better than black voters↑, don't you?

No reality knows better than the black voter, or more accurately everyone that voted for Clinton in the primary, hence why we have President trump now. People in general a foolish silly talking apes and trump is the punishment we deserve, well you deserve more precisely.

So, here, try again↗. You'll find input from black people like Chauncy DeVega, or a reporter named Aimee Parnes got a couple minutes with a guy named Jamal Simmons.

Question: if I pull up black Bernie voters what then?

There is plenty of discussion of the superpredator question in that post; you've just chosen to keep demanding what's already there. If you had read through the post, there were plenty of links. Indeed, I noted↑ that was a string of related post, laced throughout with links to other wesites, and if you'd bothered with any of those related posts you eventually would have gotten to the part↗ where all those links are listed.

At any rate, to make it as simple as possible: It's up to each black voter, and as I near as I can figure from DeVega, Simmons, each black voter has his or her own priorities.

Well you at-least understand the concept of individualism... still not seeing how Hillary superpredator is less worse than Bernie comment though.

How about Charles M. Blow? You skipped out↑ on a post offering↑ a link to a discussion of the issue↗ that included input from Charles M. Blow.

But because you decided to ignore all that even your bogus troll tack fails; you're asking for external links and analyses that aren't mine that are already on the record.

Great, but still not seeing that succinct answer I requested.

And I don't really see the point of wasting any more time on you or your damn fallacies.

and around and around we go, none the less we can't escape this hell you put us in with president trump.

 

[ElectricFetus]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Yeah Iceaura lives in is own world, But he does have one point: those that voted for trump because they were pissed at the regressive left have doomed us all, like the Bush voters of 2000.

 

[iceaura]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Your problem is you don't have a transcript to look at, and you lose track of what he's actually saying.

The guy actually does blame the racial and gender divisions of the US public on the the Democratic Party PC and loopy crowd, of recent vintage (since it comes along in tandem with the Democrats discarding the white working class), and he actually does call those people "the Left". He claims - literally, in these words - that the Democratic Party has been taken over by the Left, and that's when and why they alienated the white working class. (I added the word "white" there - he tapdances around that, often simply calling it the working class and talking about it as if it were the whole working class instead of a minority share).

And he really does argue that from county majorities switching from Obama to Trump, we can deduce that racism is not a major factor (the imbecility of his statistical reasoning is a core weakness of his stuff in general).

And so forth.

It's not a joke - that stuff is at the core of his thesis, such as it is. It's a common one among Euro-righties, because they don't know how American racism actually works, and they don't know they don't know. Also, they mistake vocabulary for reality - that if major media call something "left" in America, it has to be at least the same general sort of thing that "left" would be wherever they come from: this sets them up to be knocked over by the Big Lie. And unlike a sock-'em, they haven't got the intellectual sand to right themselves - the wind takes them.

This would be adorably cute, from our Quentin Crisp wannabe there, if it were not backed by raw and ugly power in American politics. This is the American Heritage thesis, the conventional wingnut, the Fox and Breitbart and 4chan and Rove and Luntz and Limbaugh and and all the rest of the Republican Party core that brought us Trump. Not really cute, after all.

those that voted for trump because they were pissed at the regressive left have doomed us all

They voted for Trump because they bought into fascist propaganda, otherwise know as Republican media and campaign rhetoric. Just like you and karen - isolated from physical reality, therefore ignorant, and therefore vulnerable.

They can't possibly have been pissed at the Left, or any part of it, because they have had no real contact with it for decades now.

 

[Capracus]

No we lost everything and a pig boar is now president and the republicans are going to rape this nation to death, that why I hurt. All I'm saying is we should have gone with Bernie, and if Clinton voting democrats can't go with the most electable candidate next time than yes we will have a long line of republican president and legislators to come.

If we had gone with Bernie we’d now be lamenting not choosing Hillary, because he was arguably less electable than she was.

The Myth That Sanders Would Have Won Against Trump


It is impossible to say what would have happened under a fictional scenario, but Sanders supporters often dangle polls from early summer showing he would have performed better than Clinton against Trump. They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach.


When Sanders promoted free college tuition—a primary part of his platform that attracted young people—that didn’t mean much for almost half of all Democrats, who don’t attend—or even plan to attend—plan to attend a secondary school. In fact, Sanders was basically telling the working poor and middle class who never planned to go beyond high school that college students—the people with even greater opportunities in life—were at the top of his priority list.


So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.


Here are a few tastes of what was in store for Sanders, straight out of the Republican playbook: He thinks rape is A-OK. In 1972, when he was 31, Sanders wrote a fictitious essay in which he described a woman enjoying being raped by three men. Yes, there is an explanation for it—a long, complicated one, just like the one that would make clear why the Clinton emails story was nonsense. And we all know how well that worked out.


Then there’s the fact that Sanders was on unemployment until his mid-30s, and that he stole electricity from a neighbor after failing to pay his bills, and that he co-sponsored a bill to ship Vermont’s nuclear waste to a poor Hispanic community in Texas, where it could be dumped. You can just see the words “environmental racist” on Republican billboards. And if you can’t, I already did. They were in the Republican opposition research book as a proposal on how to frame the nuclear waste issue.


Also on the list: Sanders violated campaign finance laws, criticized Clinton for supporting the 1994 crime bill that he voted for, and he voted against the Amber Alert system. His pitch for universal health care would have been used against him too, since it was tried in his home state of Vermont and collapsed due to excessive costs. Worst of all, the Republicans also had video of Sanders at a 1985 rally thrown by the leftist Sandinista government in Nicaragua where half a million people chanted, “Here, there, everywhere/the Yankee will die,’’ while President Daniel Ortega condemned “state terrorism” by America. Sanders said, on camera, supporting the Sandinistas was “patriotic.”


The Republicans had at least four other damning Sanders videos (I don’t know what they showed), and the opposition research folder was almost 2-feet thick. (The section calling him a communist with connections to Castro alone would have cost him Florida.) In other words, the belief that Sanders would have walked into the White House based on polls taken before anyone really attacked him is a delusion built on a scaffolding of political ignorance.


Could Sanders still have won? Well, Trump won, so anything is possible. But Sanders supporters puffing up their chests as they arrogantly declare Trump would have definitely lost against their candidate deserve to be ignored.

http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

All liberals had to do was to:

1) Vote in sufficient numbers. Liberal turnout in swing states was proportionally lower than the previous two elections.

2) Not vote for the pig boar. Most liberals managed not to choose the Republican swine on their ballot.

3) Not cast wasteful symbolic votes for third party candidates. Too many liberals by default chose Joffrey Trump as their king by voting third party.

This election was more about the apathy and exaggerated idealism of select voters than the failings of a particular candidate.

 

[ElectricFetus]

If we had gone with Bernie we’d now be lamenting not choosing Hillary, because he was arguably less electable than she was.

You can't prove that, you can argue all you want the sanders would have lost too, but the fact of the matter is that Hillary lost and we will never know what could have been under Bernie, but if you want to ignore me, prepare for 8 years of trump and total republican domination.
Anyways back to arguing ad nasum

1. We needed a candidate that would has sufficiently motivated and boost moral of liberals to get them to come out and vote, which was not Hillary
2. Some did vote for the pig boar, many white working class voters in states that became swing states, that have voted for Obama twice turned around and voted for trump. Why? because they foresaw no economic improvement under Hillary, and were willing to take a gamble for change. This is not about getting just the liberal vote this is about getting enough votes to win.
3. Sicken by their choices they rather vote third party, maybe we should have had a candidate that did not sicken them so.

 

[Capracus]

Isn’t it all about our side winning? When given the choice of a pig boar and a lackluster liberal establishment relic, shouldn’t a responsible liberal voter be counted on to do the right thing? Is that too much to ask?

 

[wellwisher]

The problem Hillary had, was both her and former president Bill Clinton, were moderate democrats. The Democrats, had swung more to the left, under president Obama. This put Hillary in a tough spot, since she needed to secure the larger leftist base, that had evolved. However, this made her less optimized to her comfort zone, which would have been more center. In the center would have appealed to moderate Republicans. For many republicans, the moderate Hillary they knew, was preferred over Trump, at least at the very beginning of the process.

If you go back to the primaries, Hillary started with a moderate tone, that could appeal to the middle on both sides. However, Bernie was far left and doing way better than anyone predicted. If you remember, Hillary had to shift gears and became more left, which was away from her moderate comfort zone. She needed to go there to lure the base, away from Bernie during and after the primary. To gain Bernie voters for the general election, she had to stay left. Had she been able to stay in the middle, she would have gotten the blue collar workers. Bernie in many ways, due to his success, took Hillary out of her optimize zone where she would have shined brighter. Instead of reciting speeches she would be talking more from her heart and experience. This would have gone a long way to her success.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Isn’t it all about our side winning? When given the choice of a pig boar and a lackluster liberal establishment relic, shouldn’t a responsible liberal voter be counted on to do the right thing? Is that too much to ask?

You keep missing the fact we need MORE voters than simply self proclaimed liberals, we need some independents, moderates and that ~45% of Americans too apathetic or busy on election day to vote.

The problem Hillary had, was both her and former president Bill Clinton, were moderate democrats. The Democrats, had swung more to the left, under president Obama.

Just as the republican swung sideways with there near decade of lacking centralize party authority and the rise of the tea party and then successor alt-right. The Alt-right and the "far left" as you would call it both share common international goals, ending international trade and war, isolationism, most of all the alt-right are populist pro-worker rather than pro-big business and in this regard at least in rhetoric the republicans of the trump administration have horseshoed around to nearly meet the new left on the other side when it comes to economics.

If you go back to the primaries, Hillary started with a moderate tone, that could appeal to the middle on both sides. However, Bernie was far left and doing way better than anyone predicted. If you remember, Hillary had to shift gears and became more left, which was away from her moderate comfort zone. She needed to go there to lure the base, away from Bernie during and after the primary. To gain Bernie voters for the general election, she had to stay left. Had she been able to stay in the middle, she would have gotten the blue collar workers.

Oh and what exactly did she move to the left on that scared off the blue collar worker? Do you think if she stayed pro-TTP she would have won?

Bernie in many ways, due to his success, took Hillary out of her optimize zone where she would have shined brighter. Instead of reciting speeches she would be talking more from her heart and experience. This would have gone a long way to her success.

No one trusts or cares about her "heart and experience", decades of republicans bashing her made sure of that. Now I have personally talked with blue collar working moderates and republicans and there was no fucking way they would vote for Hillary, there arguments why had nothing to do with bernie pushing her left and everything to do with her corruption, the email scandal, Benghazi, Clinton foundation, her supposedly attack Bill's blow job providers, etc, etc, etc. They rather have a huckster pig boar who wore his impulsive opinions honestly on his shoulder than a machiavellian with a public and private opinion.

 

[Capracus]

You keep missing the fact we need MORE voters than simply self proclaimed liberals, we need some independents, moderates and that ~45% of Americans too apathetic or busy on election day to vote.

We had the numbers as far as voters aligned with liberal principles goes, but a critical portion of that population was reckless in their civic duties. All the polls showed the race was close, yet enough of the liberal minded carelessly behaved as if it wasn’t. I agree that it’s always preferable to have a more appealing candidate as your nominee, but that’s not the hand we were dealt, and it then became the electorate’s responsibility act reasonably, and as a whole on the liberal side, they didn’t meet that expectation.