I can't even comment

[imported_tajmahal]

Man, I'm glad you picked a black guy to defend your strange opinion. It wouldn't be valid otherwise. Obviously, all black guys think like your black guy, so you must be right. Man, I wish I had that black guy card to pull out of my pocket, too.

Just pull that same old, same old tattered race card out of your ass that you usually pull. err pocket.

 

[Starbuck1975]

And Hillary wasn't nominated until the DNC, which was held July 25-28. She wasn't under investigation after Comey's speech. The matter was closed until the FBI found Huma's email on Weiner's computer a few weeks prior to the election. That was also a big nothing, but a damaging one.

You are talking about the formal nomination. I am talking about registered Democrat voters blindly following the establishment off a cliff in selecting her as a nominee despite her easily exploitable weaknesses and clear evidence of populist momentum for both Sanders and Trump.

 

[Iron Woode]

wow! this thread is a train wreck.

of course that's not surprising considering who the engineer is (OP). A derailing is never complete unless there are lots of accusations of racism followed by "but, but she won the popular vote!! wharrgarbl!!!!!!!!!".

a couple posters really need to go to a safe space and just cry it all out. maybe then they can grow up and start having intelligent debates.

nah, never going to happen.

 

[Sonikku]

I think what I'm disappointed by most this cycle is how much people were taken in by pictures with damning text slapped on them. Voters really believe things like the Pope endorsing Trump or Hillary plotting to render all private property invalid by executive power and awarding everything to the state. They really, truly, believe that crap.

Certainly though if it was a a second thing I was disappointed by it was Hillary keeping her head down seemingly in an effort to run out the clock without actually taking the Republicans to task over the issues. Far more important than whether Trump is a racist or sexist is what he will do with his party to Social Security and Medicare. These are things that could potentially be damaged and Trump makes the perfect scapegoat for the establishment once they've been privatized and gutted.

 

[ivwshane]

You are talking about the formal nomination. I am talking about registered Democrat voters blindly following the establishment off a cliff in selecting her as a nominee despite her easily exploitable weaknesses and clear evidence of populist momentum for both Sanders and Trump.

Speak for yourself.

 

[jackstar7]

You are talking about the formal nomination. I am talking about registered Democrat voters blindly following the establishment off a cliff in selecting her as a nominee despite her easily exploitable weaknesses and clear evidence of populist momentum for both Sanders and Trump.

You are repeating a narrative that is divorced from reality just slightly. Like a minor tangent.

Come back.

 

[superstition]

but it is a different if not damaging form of racism.

What?

I really don't get your post at all but what seems clear enough is that either Carson is good at being an Uncle Tom (or tries to be good at it) or is just not very intelligent outside of his area of expertise: surgical medicine.

Condemning racism by promoting it is incompetent at best and corrupt at worst.

The trouble with racism is that there is a paradoxical element. Recognizing it and combating it gives it power. So, it can be useful to find ways to not invest it with power by emphasizing it unduly. HOWEVER... ignoring something that exists is not a valid solution. That's the old Bill O'Reilly "I don't see color" bull.

The best way to combat racism is to delegitimize it with science. Facts are the kryptonite of bogus ideology.

 

[agent00f]

20 states and 232 elector is irrelevant. If only she won the Sanders states. Sanders saw her exposed flank but went the white knight polite route, and it cost him the nomination. Trump exploited it, as many of us predicted.

I wouldn't say all liberals are arrogant, but some Clinton supporters surely were, especially once the polls started signaling a clear and decisive Clinton win. Not all conservatives are arrogant, but some Trump supporters are certainly enjoying the underdog victory and rubbing it in the faces of those who were shitting on them just a few weeks prior.

Rational people also thought it insane to nominate a candidate under active FBI investigation in an election year of clear populist angst.

Who is on a divine mission? Elections have consequences.

Obama is and remains a wildly popular President. His legacy is in jeopardy because the establishment bet on the wrong horse.

You've learned nothing.

Yeah I'm sure the rust belt non-college types riled up by white nationalist speeches would've gone for the socialist instead.

Funny nobody wants to give Trump credit for intuitively understanding what every study on what really matters to voters tells us. He literally admitted in an early interview that he just spouts whatever gets the crowd going, and I'm sure everyone's seen the mexican rapists, "those areas", "you know what I'm talking about" quotes enough to know what he's been talking about.

 

[agent00f]

What?

I really don't get your post at all but what seems clear enough is that either Carson is good at being an Uncle Tom (or tries to be good at it) or is just not very intelligent outside of his area of expertise: surgical medicine.

Condemning racism by promoting it is incompetent at best and corrupt at worst.

The trouble with racism is that there is a paradoxical element. Recognizing it and combating it gives it power. So, it can be useful to find ways to not invest it with power by emphasizing it unduly. HOWEVER... ignoring something that exists is not a valid solution. That's the old Bill O'Reilly "I don't see color" bull.

The best way to combat racism is to delegitimize it with science. Facts are the kryptonite of bogus ideology.

The racists want racism because it benefits them, it's just business as they say. Federal money going to white Real™ people instead of the "urbans", first in line for the good jobs, you get the idea.

The only way to combat self-interest is to make it no longer in their self-interest, like banning it by statute and punishing violators.

 

[Starbuck1975]

You are repeating a narrative that is divorced from reality just slightly. Like a minor tangent.

Come back.

The reality is she lost because she was the weaker candidate to face Trump despite the arrogance and tone deafness of those who thought otherwise.

The only tangent I see is those placing blame on the media or Russians or racism or sexism or some alt-right boogey man or the FBI. You are welcome to talk about those things. But you also have to examine the strategic blunders made by her campaign.

Did Trump play dirty? Absolutely. He wiped out the establishment GOP field doing so and he outflanked the Democrat establishment candidate doing so.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Yeah I'm sure the rust belt non-college types riled up by white nationalist speeches would've gone for the socialist instead.

Funny nobody wants to give Trump credit for intuitively understanding what every study on what really matters to voters tells us. He literally admitted in an early interview that he just spouts whatever gets the crowd going, and I'm sure everyone's seen the mexican rapists, "those areas", "you know what I'm talking about" quotes enough to know what he's been talking about.

Sanders carried many of those rust belt states during the primary. I find it interesting. There is a large white nationalist element in California and Arizona because those states are at the front lines of the Mexican immigration discussion. I doubt there is a huge presence in Wisconsin or Michigan or reliably blue Pennsylvania.

Those in the rust belt are more concerned about the jobs they lost due to globalism. Obama carried those states twice. People don't vote for the first black President, enthusiastically so I might add, and then suddenly become racist because some moron is spouting nonsense in Twitter.

It's the economy stupid.

 

[agent00f]

Sanders carried many of those rust belt states during the primary. I find it interesting. There is a large white nationalist element in California and Arizona because those states are at the front lines of the Mexican immigration discussion. I doubt there is a huge presence in Wisconsin or Michigan or reliably blue Pennsylvania.

Those in the rust belt are more concerned about the jobs they lost due to globalism. Obama carried those states twice. People don't vote for the first black President, enthusiastically so I might add, and then suddenly become racist because some moron is spouting nonsense in Twitter.

It's the economy stupid.

That must be why they were cheering every time that wall got 10ft taller. The fact they're doing so on the other side of the country against bottom rung fruit pickers necessarily implies they don't particularly care for them mexicans rapists. The birther in chief just reminded them which side of the race war they're on.

 

[Starbuck1975]

That must be why they were cheering every time that wall got 10ft taller. The fact they're doing so on the other side of the country against bottom rung fruit pickers necessarily implies they don't particularly care for them mexicans rapists. The birther in chief just reminded them which side of the race war they're on.

I see this as more of an international trend. The globalization and open borders experiment is coming to a predictable conclusion. Look at what is happening in the EU. Merkel, that well known nationalist racist facist Nazi populist, just announced support for banning full head scarves as being culturally opposed to German identity.

Why are people cheering about the wall? Because the GOP and Democrat establishment have been absolutely tone deaf to immigration. You have one party advocating amnesty and open borders? Trump swung the door in the polar oposite direction. The wall is more symbolic than physical.

 

[agent00f]

I see this as more of an international trend. The globalization and open borders experiment is coming to a predictable conclusion. Look at what is happening in the EU. Merkel, that well known nationalist racist facist Nazi populist, just announced support for banning full head scarves as being culturally opposed to German identity.

Merkel as a similar centrist to the democrats found out first hand just how much of that old reich persisted, and so did the predictable cuck centrist thing.

Why are people cheering about the wall? Because the GOP and Democrat establishment have been absolutely tone deaf to immigration. You have one party advocating amnesty and open borders? Trump swung the door in the polar oposite direction. The wall is more symbolic than physical.

Don't forget hating on the terrorists and "those areas", too, and asians when Bannon gets his way.

 

[Jhhnn]

You are talking about the formal nomination. I am talking about registered Democrat voters blindly following the establishment off a cliff in selecting her as a nominee despite her easily exploitable weaknesses and clear evidence of populist momentum for both Sanders and Trump.

I'm talking about your bullshit. "Nomination" means nomination, no matter how desperately you try to dance away from your original assertion. Dems did not nominate a person under formal FBI investigation as you originally claimed.

The reality is she lost because she was the weaker candidate to face Trump despite the arrogance and tone deafness of those who thought otherwise.

The only tangent I see is those placing blame on the media or Russians or racism or sexism or some alt-right boogey man or the FBI. You are welcome to talk about those things. But you also have to examine the strategic blunders made by her campaign.

Did Trump play dirty? Absolutely. He wiped out the establishment GOP field doing so and he outflanked the Democrat establishment candidate doing so.

And back to the concern trolling about how Bernie woulda won & discounting the slime that strongly affected the outcome. "Can't trust Hillary!" was among the most effective smear campaigns of the modern era. It killed Dem turnout in key states & gave Trump the win. Bernie's Leftist! Leftist! Leftist! past wouldn't have served him any better.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I'm talking about your bullshit. "Nomination" means nomination, no matter how desperately you try to dance away from your original assertion. Dems did not nominate a person under formal FBI investigation as you originally claimed.



And back to the concern trolling about how Bernie woulda won & discounting the slime that strongly affected the outcome. "Can't trust Hillary!" was among the most effective smear campaigns of the modern era. It killed Dem turnout in key states & gave Trump the win. Bernie's Leftist! Leftist! Leftist! past wouldn't have served him any better.

How does right wing progaganda suppress people who were already inclined to vote for Hillary? I am a Democrat or someone who votes for Obama. Trump is telling me she is crooked. Well then I better not vote for her. See how that doesn't work?

 

[jackstar7]

The reality is she lost because she was the weaker candidate to face Trump despite the arrogance and tone deafness of those who thought otherwise.

The only tangent I see is those placing blame on the media or Russians or racism or sexism or some alt-right boogey man or the FBI. You are welcome to talk about those things. But you also have to examine the strategic blunders made by her campaign.

Did Trump play dirty? Absolutely. He wiped out the establishment GOP field doing so and he outflanked the Democrat establishment candidate doing so.

The tangent is that she wasn't a weak candidate. She didn't run a strong campaign and there had been over 20 years of oppo against her, tons of it false.

You are imagining Sanders would have fared better, and I have no idea what supports that, when the oppo out there that would have been directed at him would have been pretty ugly.

 

[superstition]

Merkel as a similar centrist to the democrats found out first hand just how much of that old reich persisted, and so did the predictable brilliant gentleman centrist thing.

I'm no expert on Germany/Merkel but from what I "know" it seems to me that her game has been:

Flood Europe with Islamists in order to use them for cheap labor and use them as an excuse to crack down on freedoms (for safety, of course).

Relatedly, there seems to be the element of using them to bully other nations in the EU into being more under Germany's thumb, particularly Scandinavia — by throwing their culture and economic model into chaos.

When asked if she would take any refugees into her home she said she "could not imagine it". Let them eat cake.

Elite politicians of all stripes generally find it in their interest to flood nations with cheap labor. Only small segments like Finland are more opposed to this as they invest so much into their more communist model.

 

[agent00f]

I'm no expert on Germany/Merkel but from what I "know" it seems to me that her game has been:

Flood Europe with Islamists in order to use them for cheap labor and use them as an excuse to crack down on freedoms (for safety, of course). Possibly there is also the element of using them to bully other nations in the EU into being more under Germany's thumb, particularly Scandinavia — by throwing their culture and economic model into chaos.

When asked if she would take any refugees into her home she said she "could not imagine it". Let them eat cake.

Centrists by definition play it safe and do a little bit for everyone. If anything a bold humanitarian move of letting in a bunch of refugees was out of character. But now that she's losing support due to it, she'll flip flop around to try to appease the right, too.

Using immigrants for low cost labor is a time honored tradition, which is why there are so many algerians and such in France, but that's not the case in this situation.

 

[superstition]

Centrists by definition play it safe and do a little bit for everyone. If anything a bold humanitarian move of letting in a bunch of refugees was out of character. But now that she's losing support due to it, she'll flip flop around to try to appease the right, too.

I don't buy that narrative. I know it's popular but I think mine is more accurate, particularly in terms of Merkel.

"I can't imagine it" says the bold humanitarian.

 

[agent00f]

I don't buy that narrative. I know it's popular but I think mine is more accurate, particularly in terms of Merkel.

"I can't imagine it" says the bold humanitarian.

If you want to be cynical it makes germany look like the good guy on the world stage.

 

[superstition]

If you want to be cynical it makes germany look like the good guy on the world stage.

Merkel has bigger goals in mind than getting the MSM to write "Mama Merkel" propaganda. That's just a perk.

 

[Starbuck1975]

The tangent is that she wasn't a weak candidate. She didn't run a strong campaign and there had been over 20 years of oppo against her, tons of it false.

You are imagining Sanders would have fared better, and I have no idea what supports that, when the oppo out there that would have been directed at him would have been pretty ugly.

Sanders, like Obama, was a relative unknown. Sanders, like Obama, was in tune to what was at the forefront of swing voter concerns. Young people probably would have votes in unprecedented numbers for Sanders.
The right would have called him a socialist. So what. That is no longer a dirty word. America continues to flirt with democratic socialism and many like it even if they don't recognize it as such.

It reminds me of an attack ad Clinton ran against Trump about his temperment. The whole push the button narrative. It didn't resonate. She didn't understand the appeal of Sanders and dismissed his coalition. She underestimated Trump.

Clinton was perhaps the right candidate in the wake of W, but Obama skipped to the front of the line. Oh well.

 

[jackstar7]

Sanders was unknown to whom? The public maybe, not the politicos.

Obama was so fresh he was actually unknown. They had to throw his preacher at him!

The right would not have called him just a socialist. The smears would have been much more damning. You should look into it.

 

[agent00f]

How does right wing progaganda suppress people who were already inclined to vote for Hillary? I am a Democrat or someone who votes for Obama. Trump is telling me she is crooked. Well then I better not vote for her. See how that doesn't work?

We have a number of people on this very forum who proclaim to vote for O and now parrot the "both sides equally bad" PR.

Sanders, like Obama, was a relative unknown. Sanders, like Obama, was in tune to what was at the forefront of swing voter concerns. Young people probably would have votes in unprecedented numbers for Sanders.

Hahahhahahah. To give Sander the nod they would've needed to find some way to negate & piss off the millions more older female supporters Clinton got. You know, the people who actually vote.

The right would have called him a socialist. So what. That is no longer a dirty word. America continues to flirt with democratic socialism and many like it even if they don't recognize it as such.

You see that new idiot talking commie this and that in the other thread? I wonder who he voted for.

It reminds me of an attack ad Clinton ran against Trump about his temperment. The whole push the button narrative. It didn't resonate. She didn't understand the appeal of Sanders and dismissed his coalition. She underestimated Trump.

Clinton was perhaps the right candidate in the wake of W, but Obama skipped to the front of the line. Oh well.

In all fairness everyone except trump/bannon was optimistic about the state of race relations in the country.