Yeah...

Post #415,329 by Another Scott 11/9/16 8:27:20 AM 11/9/16 8:27:20 AM Reply	Yeah... I wonder about my country this morning. :-( Congratulations for having a truer picture of what the majority of voters would do. I let wishful thinking get the better of me again... Cheers, Scott.
Post #415,330 by a6l6e6x 11/9/16 9:54:47 AM 11/9/16 9:54:47 AM Reply	We'll see if the Reichstag (er, Capitol) has a mysterious fire in February. :) Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #415,332 by mmoffitt 11/9/16 10:27:26 AM 11/9/16 10:27:26 AM Reply	A lot of times, I wish I wasn't right about something. This is one of those times. bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,333 by boxley 11/9/16 10:39:42 AM 11/9/16 10:39:42 AM Reply	no you dont have wishful thinking at all unfortunately the people who run the DNC and have a stranglehold on cronyism and corruption are at the head of the party that mouths platitudes about the issues you care about. Trump ran on the same platform as Edwards (that bitch still owes me money) without party assistance and won the election. The DNC needs to be flushed and replaced with people who have democratic ideas and ideals not looking for their next connection to the money pile. Kennedy did it in 1963, Reagan in the eighties and now trump. Look for the outsider and back them all the way. always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #415,334 by Andrew Grygus 11/9/16 11:44:43 AM 11/9/16 11:44:43 AM Reply	You know that's not going to happen. The Democratic party are wimps - they probably have to have their balls removed to gain entry into the party structure. They have no idea whatever how to win an election - I've been watching them for years - watching them lose easy elections.
Post #415,337 by drook 11/9/16 12:22:37 PM 11/9/16 12:22:37 PM Reply	They need a good dose of cynicism The one thing I think Scott Adams absolutely nailed is Trump recognized a political campaign is a sales pitch, and selling has almost nothing to do with logic. There are two ways to win an election: 1) Frame your true positions in a way that appeals to emotion and hope for the best. 2) Say whatever it takes to win the election then do the right thing once in office. For an unethical person it's an easier decision. Go straight to option 2 and define "the right thing" however you want. -- Drew
Post #415,343 by a6l6e6x 11/9/16 3:29:57 PM 11/9/16 3:29:57 PM Reply	Re: Say whatever it takes to win And say it at a rate that overwhelms what any BS detector can handle. Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov
Post #415,346 by drook 11/9/16 6:23:49 PM 11/9/16 6:23:49 PM Reply	You don't have to overwhelm the BS detector It's the BS refuter you have to overwhelm. We knew Trump was full of shit. But he can tell so many lies in 5 minutes it takes hours to refute it all. Every speech of his is a Gish Gallop. See here for an explanation: That Trump casually lies at the podium almost as often as he breathes is a well-documented claim leveled at him by traditional and new media alike. But actually unpacking all those lies in one cable news segment, in the confines of a debate, or in a single online post is a Herculean task. Take a look at this Huffington Post piece, which does a fabulous job of listing a few of the whoppers in Trump’s convention speech and summarizing the corrections—just as an example: Trump said after Clinton’s four years as secretary of state, “Iran is on the path to nuclear weapons.” But Iran was already on a path to acquiring nuclear weapons. At issue is whether the nuclear deal will prevent Iran, as intended, from becoming a nuclear power. What follows in the article is several meaty grafs on Iran’s actual history in pursuing nukes, spanning several White House administrations. This led to the Iranian nuclear agreement last year, and why it’s arguably in the world’s interests. But to hear Trump tell it, it all happened under Obama/Clinton through sheer negligence, and we even paid Iran billions of dollars in bribe money to sign the deal! The nod-nod wink-wink conspiratorial implication is that Clinton and Obama are in cahoots with Iran. HuffPo did a fine job reviewing all that in a concise manner, but it would be difficult to squeeze it all into a debate or a soundbite, even for someone who is well prepared. Throw in a dozen more similar convoluted whoppers, and the constraints of cable news or a debate format would make correcting even a fraction of them impossible. -- Drew
Post #415,347 by Another Scott 11/9/16 8:10:49 PM 11/9/16 8:10:49 PM Reply	Ok - Let's say the DNC is gone. What replaces it? You can't beat something with nothing. If Democrats want to win bigly again, they need an effective organization. Politics aren't wired for Democrats the way they are for Republicans. President Obama had trouble getting his official speeches covered, yet Donnie got $2B in free air-time... I am not convinced that the DLC was horrible, or that the DNC is horrible, or that taking so long to throw out DWS, or any of the other similar things we've heard for months (or decades) is self-evident and if only we burn them down then we'll win. DFA tried to be some heavy-weight group that pushes to elect progressive candidates. They were just about invisible this go-round. What replaces the DNC? Who runs it? What's their bumper-sticker slogan? Why should anyone listen to them? I'm going to be contributing to Planned Parenthood, the NAACP, and the ACLU shortly. Convince me that there's some organization that will do better than the DNC in 2018 and 2020 and maybe they'll get a donation, too. Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #415,349 by Andrew Grygus 11/9/16 8:56:24 PM 11/9/16 8:56:24 PM Reply	Eviscerate the DNC. Disqualify all the current careerists . . . . . for membership, unless there is a very good reason for someone to be retained, and re-build it with new, more enthusiastic people. Hopefully people who have some idea how to win elections. From the Los Angeles Times today (11-09-16)
Post #415,362 by boxley 11/10/16 10:55:29 AM 11/10/16 10:55:29 AM Reply	this one ^ always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #415,355 by mmoffitt 11/10/16 8:44:37 AM 11/10/16 8:44:37 AM Reply	The DLC wasn't horrible? That's your White privilege speaking. The (largely Southern) DLC pushed the Party right, courted Wall Street and turned its back on organized labor (which was never very popular in the South anyway). Well educated Whites went along for the ride (their standard of living didn't depend upon union membership). Blacks and Hispanics largely followed them because where else could they go? But who did the Democratic Party lose by adopting this "DLC Third Way" of politics? The great unwashed, uneducated working class. Why did they lose them? Because this new Third Way Democratic Party told them their decent paying, pension yielding Union manufacturing jobs didn't matter. What mattered was the owners of those companies and those owners needed to further enrich themselves by dismantling all Union power and relocating their plants to countries without an EPA where they could pay pennies on the dollar for common labor. They said, "Don't worry. We'll train you for new service sector jobs." Here's a news flash for you. A lot of those people cannot be trained to newer, more intellectually challenging jobs. So, they go flip burgers or work in gas stations or take other at or near minimum wage jobs and watch their standard of living disappear. In short, the DNC broke their bargain with the working class. The deal had been that you could enjoy a decent standard of living, send your kids off to college and retire to a comfortable life that didn't involve eating cat food one of two ways: (1) You could be lucky enough to have biological parents who allowed you to be born with the intellect to get through the rigors of an advanced college curriculum or (2) You could go down to the Union Hall, enter an apprentice program and by the time you'd become a journeyman, you could afford to live among the college educated, in their neighborhoods and you and your family could afford the same lifestyle as the egghead class. The DLC kicked option (2) to the curb. Educated people still embrace liberal ideology. They do that because they are more likely to see the disadvantage that many POC and women have in our economy. They think in more lofty terms than the working class. The working class cannot think that way for a variety of reasons, but the biggest one is that their standard of living has been going down since 1980 and they are struggling to just get by. You cannot appeal to those people using the same methods you use to appeal to the better educated. They simply are incapable of "getting it." What you have to do instead is convince them that you believe they are valuable, too, and you sure as hell don't do that by calling them a "basket of deplorables." Just because one group was born with less intellectual potential does not mean that they aren't "worth as much" as the more fortunate. The only way you're going to get the working class to come back to the Democratic Party is by adopting and then actually implementing policies that re-instate option (2) previously discussed. The best way to do that is to vociferously re-start the Union movement in this country. Make it illegal for non-Union shops to get any government contracts, for instance. My dad had a Master's in Russian studies, taught high school and junior college and we lived in a neighborhood where no one on my block had even an undergraduate degree - BUT, they all had union jobs. The Democratic Party cannot survive if it is the party of the intellectuals only. There aren't enough intellectuals to win any election. Through policy, you have to give the lessers a chance and the DNC has been vastly more interested in keeping the 1% donor class happy than giving these "deplorables" a way to succeed. bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,401 by Another Scott 11/10/16 4:39:54 PM 11/10/16 4:39:54 PM Reply	Bill won. Results matter. Reagan killed unions - not the DLC. Jerry could have beaten Bill, but he didn't. Why? Wikipedia: Clinton, a Southerner with experience governing a more conservative state, positioned himself as a centrist New Democrat. He prepared for a run in 1992 amidst a crowded field seeking to beat the incumbent President George H. W. Bush. In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, Bush seemed unbeatable but an economic recession -- which ultimately proved to be small by historical standards -- spurred the Democrats on. Tom Harkin won his native Iowa without much surprise. Clinton, meanwhile, was still a relatively unknown national candidate before the primary season when a woman named Gennifer Flowers appeared in the press to reveal allegations of an affair. Clinton sought damage control by appearing on 60 Minutes with his wife, Hillary Clinton, for an interview with Steve Kroft. Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts won the primary in neighboring New Hampshire but Clinton's second-place finish – strengthened by Clinton's speech labeling himself "The Comeback Kid" – re-energized his campaign. Clinton swept nearly all of the Southern Super Tuesday primaries, making him the solid front runner. Jerry Brown, however, began to run a surprising insurgent campaign, particularly through use of a 1-800 number to receive grassroots funding. Brown "seemed to be the most left-wing and right-wing man in the field. [He] called for term limits, a flat tax, and the abolition of the Department of Education."[3] Brown scored surprising wins in Connecticut and Colorado and seemed poised to overtake Clinton. On March 17, Tsongas left the race when he decisively lost both the Illinois and Michigan primaries to Clinton, with Brown as a distant third. Exactly one week later, Brown eked out a narrow win in the bitterly fought Connecticut primary. As the press focused on the primaries in New York and Wisconsin, which were both to be held on the same day, Brown, who had taken the lead in polls in both states, made a serious gaffe: he announced to an audience of various leaders of New York City's Jewish community that, if nominated, he would consider the Reverend Jesse Jackson as a vice presidential candidate. Jackson was still a controversial figure in that community and Brown's polling numbers suffered. On April 7, he lost narrowly to Bill Clinton in Wisconsin (37-34), and dramatically in New York (41-26). In addition, his "willingness to break with liberal orthodoxy on taxes led to denunciations from the party regulars, but by the end of the race he had been embraced by much of the Left."[3] Although Brown continued to campaign in a number of states, he won no further primaries. Despite this, he still had a sizable number of delegates, and a big win in his home state of California would have deprived Clinton of sufficient support to win the nomination. After nearly a month of intense campaigning and multiple debates between the two candidates, Clinton managed to defeat Brown in the California primary by a margin of 47% to 40%. Voters made their choice on whether to pick Bill or Jerry. Jerry couldn't even win California. Politics change over time - the DLC found a working message for its time. If Bill hadn't won, the Democrats would have been weaker - not stronger - going forward into the 2000s. Is it the message for today? Probably not. But continuing to beat up on it 5+ years after it disbanded (and 8+ years after Obama made it irrelevant) is silly. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #415,408 by mmoffitt 11/11/16 8:22:56 AM 11/11/16 8:22:56 AM Reply	Why did Jerry lose? Ron Brown had a lot to do with that. By 1992, the Democratic Party's abandonment of the working class was nearing completion. Bill drove the last few coffin nails into them. It's incredible to me that anyone can argue that the Democratic Party has not moved significantly to the Right, toward the monied class in Manhattan, virtually embedded themselves into the MIC, etc. It should be clear that the Democratic Party is severely broken. Under the brilliance of New Democrats, 2/3'rds of all State Legislatures are in Republican hands. How's that redistricting thing going to go for us? Yet, the rightward march of the DNC is somehow not the problem. The fact that the Democratic candidate for President this year explicitly wrote off half of all US voters is also somehow not to blame. It was that damned Green Party in the role of Ralph Nader who despite not really costing Gore Florida is by lore, still the reason GW Bush beat him. Fascinating thinking. Fatal rationalization. If this is what is gleaned by all those who support the elite, who think a Democratic President bailing out banksters to the tune of 4T+ whilst simultaneously demanding that the UAW cut the wages of new hires in half and never offer them a pension in order to get a loan is good Democratic policy then yeah, I might have been a little overly optimistic about the upside of a Trump victory. If the same old feeble defense of Third Way Democratic candidates is all that comes out of this, then we are well and truly finished as a nation. bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,409 by Another Scott 11/11/16 9:20:53 AM 11/11/16 9:20:53 AM Reply	I see we still can't agree on the basic facts, let alone the interpretation. The incompetent Democratic party has won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections. Somehow a majority of Democratic voters expressing their opinion on who they want as leaders is invalid and incorrect because somehow the all-powerful DLC/DNC Cabal made them do it. But that all-powerful cabal is simultaneously impotent at getting their agenda passed, so they need to be replaced by a different all-powerful cabal that is the Vanguard of the Revolution that will tell voters what to think. Or something. Supposedly 100,000 votes spread over 3 states would have given Hillary the victory. And GOP voter suppression efforts could easily account for that number of votes. But, no, the only possible explanation is that the all-powerful DLC/DNC cabal prevented an old shouty socialist who had effectively no support in the party base (minorities and women), who wasn't a member of the party, who had been in DC for decades and did little but carp from the sidelines about how Corrupt™ it all is while not getting any significant support to try to make things better, from winning the nomination and thus voters decided to burn it all down. And the GOP had nothing to do with all the things you decry. Ergo, it's all Terry McAuliffe's fault. QED. Is that about it? (sigh) Cheers, Scott.
Post #415,410 by pwhysall 11/11/16 9:26:10 AM 11/11/16 9:26:10 AM Reply	^^ that
Post #415,411 by mmoffitt 11/11/16 9:47:42 AM 11/11/16 9:47:42 AM Reply	Why do you continue to refuse to recognize the obvious? You CANNOT expect to win the electoral college (and you know as well as I that the popular vote doesn't mean a damned thing) if you ignore the Working class. But this new Democratic Party not only ignored them this time, they officially called them "deplorable." This new Democratic Party's President Obama (as someone in the British Press noted) spent more time focusing on which bathroom people should use than the plight of America's working class. And when he did work on something that impacted the working class, what did he do? He tried to kick them again with the TPP. The Democratic Party needs to listen to what once would have been called Standard Issue New Deal Democrats who are now called "shouty old Socialists" by New Democrats if they ever want to again return to power. You keep citing the 50% or so of people who voted. What about the 50% who don't? How many of them do you think would vote for more Right Wing policies? The Progressive Left is not the enemy. We're trying to save the Party. We're trying to get the Party into a position where they won't suffer the disgrace of losing to a privileged, deranged orangutan ever again. We've been telling you for over a year that if you continue to focus solely on the top 10% and identity politics you will lose. The old saying applies here in spades, "You run a Republican against a Republican and ..." Like it or not, the Democratic Party is going to need the "deplorables" if they are going to win where it counts: the electoral college, the State legislatures, the Congress and the Senate. Republican Lite isn't going to cut it anymore. Our policies have to be at least as good to them as we've been to Wall Street since 1992 or they won't show up, or worse, continue to be so disgusted with us that they'll actually vote for a turd over one more of our corporatists. Weaver pretty accurately diagnoses the problem. "Clearly what this election demonstrated -- from the primaries through the general election -- was that the centrist, more moderate wing of the (Democratic) party has no standing with working class and middle class voters in this country," said Jeff Weaver, who was campaign manager for Clinton's Democratic rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. "It's time for the progressive wing to reassert themselves and offer a bold agenda to the American people," Weaver said. "The real losers in this campaign were the Democratic and Republican establishments. People clearly wanted change. Trump became the vehicle for that change in the general election. I think many people voted for him in spite of his outrageous positions, as opposed to in favor of them. So we need to demonstrate to people that we stand with them, not with the wealthy and powerful." http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/democrats-election-2016/index.html bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,412 by Another Scott 11/11/16 10:53:45 AM 11/11/16 10:53:45 AM Reply	Sore Loserman says he was Right. Film at 11. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/8/23/1563267/-Bernie-s-dream-may-be-smashed-Thank-Jeff-Weaver Yeah, Weaver's the go-to guy on how to win an election. And Bernie's the genius who hired him. (sigh) Cheers, Scott.
Post #415,413 by mmoffitt 11/11/16 11:08:38 AM 11/11/16 11:08:38 AM Reply	That's disappointing. But it doesn't mean he isn't right in my quote of him. This, from the comments, IMnsHO is telling. He seems to be choosing well in my state. We here would like to get rid of more than a few of democratic senators and reps who are not representing our interests. We are being given no options other than voting republican. We need better options. You want more of the same? Change nothing. But, and let me be the first to say this, if the Democrats nominate another Wall Street Shill in 2020, they will lose again. bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,414 by mmoffitt 11/11/16 11:38:46 AM 11/11/16 11:38:46 AM Reply	OTOH, with the tremendous drag at the top of the ticket, ... They did pretty well after all. More of their candidates won than lost (55%). Just imagine how much better they'd have done without all those "Straight Ticket Republican" ballots cast against Hillary. https://ourrevolution.com/election-2016/ bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,415 by Another Scott 11/11/16 11:45:09 AM 11/11/16 11:45:09 AM Reply	Yeah, they supported ~ 6 House Democrats who won. Feel the Power of the Bern. :-/
Post #415,419 by mmoffitt 11/11/16 12:17:34 PM 11/11/16 12:17:34 PM Reply	When you're rebuilding a political party, you've got to start somewhere, Sport. ;0) bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,421 by Another Scott 11/11/16 12:27:51 PM 11/11/16 12:27:51 PM Reply	Re: When you're rebuilding a political party, you've got to start somewhere, Sport. ;0) Supporting 6 House Democrats isn't doing "everything" to defeat Trump and elect Hillary. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #415,422 by mmoffitt 11/11/16 1:15:14 PM 11/11/16 1:15:14 PM Reply	Um, you do know he campaigned for Her in 12 states, right? bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,425 by Another Scott 11/11/16 3:15:20 PM 11/11/16 3:15:20 PM Reply	So what. That's everything? Bernie was much more interested in pushing his oh-so-pure brand and starting his not-a-PAC PAC than helping Hillary. Did he take back his constant insinuations that she was Corrupt™? That she was in the pocket of the Millionaires and Billionaires™? No, he did not. Bernie was all about Bernie and remains that way today. He could have done much more to help her, but he didn't. Don't pretend that he did. Cheers, Scott.
Post #415,428 by mmoffitt 11/11/16 3:24:02 PM 11/11/16 3:24:02 PM Reply	What the heck could he have done that he didn't? She was a reprehensible candidate. That's on her and her supporters (see here, for example: http://forum.iwethey.org/forum/post/415424/ ). What exactly is it that you would have wished he'd done? Lie about her being a "change you can believe in" candidate instead of a status quo politician who had to be beaten into supporting weakened down Progressive policies in the Party Platform (not that many believed she'd do anything to pass that - particularly not after her choice of VP)? Seriously man, what could he have done? She was a horrible, horrible candidate from a party that has embraced horrible, horrible ideas for the past 30 years. What was he to do about that? bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,429 by Another Scott 11/11/16 3:47:03 PM 11/11/16 3:47:04 PM Reply	He didn't do everything. He damaged her and the party. He should have done more.
Post #415,431 by mmoffitt 11/11/16 4:08:05 PM 11/11/16 4:08:51 PM Reply	That's "Everything Possible". So, again, WHAT did he not do that you expected from him? If campaigning for Her - including TELLING HIS SUPPORTERS TO VOTE FOR HER wasn't enough to satisfy you, what, if anything, would have been? bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens. Edited by mmoffitt Nov. 11, 2016, 04:08:51 PM EST Expand All History
Post #415,432 by Another Scott 11/11/16 5:15:20 PM 11/11/16 5:15:20 PM Reply	The sitting President campaigned for her more than Bernie did. I don't have the time to count the actual events, so I'll use Google as a proxy: "Obama campaigns for Clinton" - 166,000 hits "Sanders campaigns for Clinton" - 26,700 hits "Obama rally for Clinton" - 11,800 hits "Sanders rally for Clinton" - 3,210 hits You think Bernie had more constraints on his time than Obama? You think Bernie did "everything" he could to make sure Trump lost and Hillary won? HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #415,435 by boxley 11/11/16 7:16:51 PM 11/11/16 7:16:51 PM Reply	trump rallying for clinton 82,400,000, did you have a point in there? always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #415,442 by Another Scott 11/11/16 10:08:41 PM 11/11/16 10:08:41 PM Reply	You have to put it in quotes if you want it to work. ;-) 58,200. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #415,434 by boxley 11/11/16 7:14:32 PM 11/11/16 7:14:32 PM Reply	well she is, he didnt want to be lying to the people always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #415,441 by Another Scott 11/11/16 10:06:42 PM 11/11/16 10:06:42 PM Reply	Then why did he say he'd campaign and wok to elect her? Can't have it both ways.
Post #415,499 by mmoffitt 11/15/16 6:01:51 PM 11/15/16 6:01:51 PM Reply	Well, maybe, MAYBE she shouldn't have insulted his supporters. You think the cancelled joint appearances had nothing to do with what SHE said? And he even DEFENDED her for that! Bernie Sanders defended Hillary Clinton after leaked audio from a closed-door fundraiser revealed the eventual Democratic presidential nominee’s unflattering description of the young voters who backed her rival during the primary, however, previously scheduled Clinton campaign events featuring her former rival were suddenly postponed this week. ... The Vermont senator defended Clinton Sunday during appearances on ABC and CNN, arguing that the two largely agree — even though Clinton dismissed some of Sanders’ policy positions as “false promises.” ... Asked whether Clinton’s remarks at the fundraiser amid their hotly contested Democratic primary bothered him, Sanders admitted, “Of course it does.” http://www.salon.com/2016/10/03/bernie-sanders-defends-hillary-clinton-over-leaked-fundraiser-audio-but-postpones-joint-campaign-event/ If you really want the Democrats to fair better in the general going forward, you really need to start first by acknowledging that the Democrats lost the Presidential election because they ran the worst candidate they possibly could have. bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,500 by Another Scott 11/15/16 6:23:56 PM 11/15/16 6:23:57 PM Reply	I think Lincoln Chafee would have done worse. ;-p
Post #415,501 by boxley 11/15/16 8:11:13 PM 11/15/16 8:11:13 PM Reply	nope because I would have voted for him always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #415,416 by drook 11/11/16 11:55:19 AM 11/11/16 11:55:19 AM Reply	She didn't call the working class deplorables. Why do you believe that? -- Drew
Post #415,418 by mmoffitt 11/11/16 12:15:31 PM 11/11/16 12:15:31 PM Reply	You're going to defend what she said? BOGGLE It doesn't matter what she intended, it's what the people in the "Fly Over" region of the country the coasts (both of them) like to mock and deride incessantly heard. Why would you call any Americans a "basket of deplorables" at the very time you are asking to be their President? Do you think that comment helped her? bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,420 by drook 11/11/16 12:24:12 PM 11/11/16 12:24:12 PM Reply	The KKK were supporting Trump. Should she not call them deplorable? Other white nationalists were supporting Trump. Should she not call them deplorable? Her point was these are the kinds of people supporting Trump. Do you really want to be on the same side as them? Sure, she didn't say it well. But the right-wing talking heads who picked up on it knew damn well who she was talking about and what she meant. But blowing it up was more entertaining, so that's what they did. Either it worked on you - remember, you're the one who said "she called the working class deplorable" - or you think that she's responsible for giving a sound bite that's so easy to misconstrue. -- Drew
Post #415,423 by mmoffitt 11/11/16 2:10:55 PM 11/11/16 2:10:55 PM Reply	Re: The KKK were supporting Trump. Should she not call them deplorable? Short answer: NO, of course she shouldn't have said it. By saying it she demonstrated clearly that she doesn't understand the majority non-racists in Fly Over country. Of course a good number of them internalized it because they're accustomed to being spoken of in such terms by what they consider elites (I'd be one of those, BTW, due to my having earned a Master's degree). A lot of those folks, displaced Union workers, have cause to feel that "deplorable" is the way their government must feel about them. Obama essentially said the same thing when he talked about people "clinging to their guns and bibles." The Liberal Elite have a long history of characterizing everyone in the MidWest in the worst terms imaginable - most importantly the working class of the Rust Belt who have had their futures stolen from them by the New Democrat's new buddies. The point is, without regard to how you, I or anyone else feels about those people, they have enough power at the voting booth to stop virtually anyone. You alienate them at your own (and arguably your nation's) peril. If that almost self-evident lesson isn't learned even after the disaster of this year's Presidential election, there's very little reason (read: none) to hope things will improve. bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,436 by boxley 11/11/16 7:18:53 PM 11/11/16 7:18:53 PM Reply	Re: The KKK were split on their support. many supported clinton http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-03-14/ku-klux-klan-grand-dragon-will-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president always look out for number one and don't step in number two
Post #415,440 by drook 11/11/16 9:39:05 PM 11/11/16 9:39:05 PM Reply	Yes, exactly that "Based on his past statements, it doesn’t appear highly credible that he has changed his effusive allegiance to Donald Trump,” Brian Levin, a former New York police officer who is director of the Centre for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University in San Bernardino, told the Telegraph. “The timing seems suspect. I think this is a function of not wanting to undermine the Trump campaign.” -- Drew
Post #415,359 by mmoffitt 11/10/16 10:13:30 AM 11/10/16 10:13:30 AM Reply	Jonathan Tasini's thoughts. So, now what? Yesterday was indeed devastating. My niece texted me, "what do we do now?" Her desperate question broke my heart. I grew up in a feminist household: My mother was one of a handful of women to break a glass ceiling, going to medical school after she already had her three kids. I know many young women are mourning the blow of a President Trump partly because of the rejection of a woman as the first president -- which is yet another reason I argue we must remake the Democratic Party. First, the Clinton machine must be rooted out of the party. A quarter of a century is enough time to understand that its ideology has failed the American people. Second, the Democratic National Committee has to be turned inside out. The disgraced and deposed chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, is only the worst symptom of this wider truth. The party has lost hundreds of state legislative seats, Republicans now control two-thirds of state chambers and have a comfortable majority of governorships (who will determine redistricting in 2020). They have a historic margin in the House of Representatives, will continue to run the Senate and, thus, likely put a Trump-stamp on the Supreme Court. Third, we need to run targeted primary contests broadly and across the board to replace elected officials who don't want to see a more open, vibrant and inclusive party. The Sanders movement has shown we can raise the money to fund challengers — and they are ready, by the thousands, to compete. With these changes, and drawing from the energy of many great activists, a new Democratic Party can be revitalized. The progressive movement, in all its elements — advocates for labor, environmentalists, and civil rights of all stripes — can shape that future. http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/opinions/democratic-party-burn-tasini/index.html bcnu, Mikem I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt. And I claim that right. Christopher Hitchens.
Post #415,491 by Ashton 11/15/16 6:58:42 AM 11/15/16 7:19:21 AM Reply	Seems a pretty objective wish-list of basic fixes.. Pity though, that a (of any number available!) Scalia clone installed, combined with the Wrecking Crew being assembled to 'counsel' the un-counselable-thus-far Drumpf: Even were all these points of Tasini's accomplished with alacrity (yashure..) ... ... Drumpf commences his slash/burn assemblage, convinced that global warming is hogwash. By the time such psychological health could be created in some shiny-New Demo Party: the rest of world /absent the usual-and-expected US Leadership in the matter: shall likely have greatly diminished their intended response to this genuine Emergency: for all obvious psych-reasons. Etc., ad nauseum. (Whatever the similarly horrific outcomes of other Drumpf fantasies: how could any or all of those outcomes matter! if/when.. various of the expected Tipping Points are passed in close-succession?) QED: most likely then: We Be Fucked in any probable Next. Ed: oTpy Edited by Ashton Nov. 15, 2016, 07:08:18 AM EST Edited by Ashton Nov. 15, 2016, 07:19:21 AM EST Expand All History

Welcome to IWETHEY!