On American Appeasement

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Tiassa, Apr 29, 2017.

  1. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    She lost to Donald Trump, thus she fucked up, it is that simple. Can we make the media not focus on Trump, no we can't, can we make millions of disgruntle workers who blame the "establishment" not vote for an supposed anti-establishment candidate like trump, no we can't, can we undo decades of baggage and scandal that surrounds Hillary, no we can't, could we have at the very least put up a more electable candidate, yes we could have. The one thing we could have done differently is run a better candidate. So despite the hundreds of unnamed people that you blame, Hillary was at the top of the list, for she was the only one we actually had a sliver of power to have not put up against that pig boar.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,957
    So you insist that the media did not fuck up, and the voters didn't fuck up, but instead the people who nominated Clinton fucked up.

    I'm still not seeing where Hillary fucked up.

    She ran as herself, the people who nominated her were very familiar with her, she did not deceive them, and she behaved exactly as anyone familiar with her expected.
     
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2017
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    No, I insist that we can't control the media.

    Yeah they fucked up, but the only way to fix that is to give them a better candidate. You can cry about people being stupid all you want, it won't fix the problem.

    Yes, YES those people, people I would expect to be smarter, fucked us all.

    Had Hillary not run we would likely have a democratic president right now, a democrat supreme court, and possible a democrat controlled senate. Had one person, Hillary Rodham Clinton, decide rightfully that she was not electable we would be in a much better world, but instead because of her ego we have a fucking Cheeto for president!

    Blame grows up the pyramid with the fewer people responsible the more they are to blame. So it goes: American people < democrat primary voters < SJWs and media < Her campaign staff managers < Hillary Clinton

    So Hillary is most responsible, for being an unelectable corporatist war hawk candidate with decades of baggage that foolishly thought she could win and strong armed anyone else from competing against her within the party, next up her campaign was retarded, next up Media and SJWs in social media, next up all the primary voters who foolished voted for her over Bernie, next up the American people for being people, that being barely evolved talking apes.

    This is like saying a fat man with a gimpy leg tries to win the marathon, oh he may be a honest nice guy, but anyone that supports him and eggs him on and proclaims he can win, is honestly only hurting him. The only difference with this allegory is everyone that supported Hillary hurt the nation and the whole world.

    Yeah she ran as her self, and enough Americans did not want her, end of story.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,854
    #selfgratification | #WhatTheyVotedFor

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Click because it's never as easy as you think to be as cool as you want.

    Maybe your pitch would be more effective if ...

    • ... you actually demonstrated some comprehension of liberal discourse, and ...

    • ... you didn't have that unfortunate misogynistic history.​

    And maybe your pitch would be more effective if Donald Trump had won a higher vote total than Hillary Clinton.

    So, no—

    —we're not going to unify around unskilled, worthless conservative provocateurism.
     
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Yes thank you for proving my point again and again: that is exactly the kind of talk that got us here with president trump, making enemies of likely voters, cry-bullying enough voters out of the party.

    Who is president now? No matter how you want to cut it, trump won ENOUGH voters. It does not matter that more people were sane enough to vote for Hillary, not ENOUGH voted for her, and that is thanks to people like you that thinks we can cut off potential voters as too white and too male and too straight and too cis and somehow win control of the goverment, as it turns out we can't even win against a cheeto with your strategy.

    Well then guess we will be getting another 4 years of Trump, and/or Pence, republican domination until they collapse the economy again.
     
  9. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,854
    #supremacism | #WhatTheyVotedFor

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Click to welcome the sun on your skin.

    I won't thank you for yet another pitch to appease supremacism.

    I want you to imagine if Donald Trump won on a proper majority.

    That supremacism is actually growing.

    Actually, that latter is possible.

    We rise together, or we stand and fight together. You who would require leaving people behind in order to pretend some manner of victory have nothing to offer.

    White, straight, cisgendered males who feel somehow cut off by the prospect of a more perfect justice in American society are the problem. The white, straight, cisgendered males who don't feel threatened by the prospect of a more perfect justice voted for Hillary Clinton, by the way.

    And you should probably abide the difference between tactics and strategy. I did a battlefield analogy for one of our Sanders-supporting neighbors, last year↗; we faced tough tactical choices, but it's also true that society found a third way that was neither holding the line nor burying the vanguard and infantry for the sake of a doomed maneuver. And in terms of tactics and strategy, that third way—losing for winning while not burying significant numbers—presents a thick tome of mysteries and a headache nigh on sublime that, for the moment seems numbed by the daily doses of This American Moment in which it's not so much schadenfreude, but, rather, fascination with the apparent cognitive dissonance as working-class Trump supporters panic about losing a whole bunch of stuff they need while the president enjoys eighty-three percent support among the Party; these people can't afford another neurotic rupture.

    But the problem with the bloc of white, straight, cisgendered males you want us to chase is that they are part of the suicide pact. And your inability to comprehend this problem is one of your really big tells. I mean, sure, you have a few, but this one's pretty big.

    Because we notice that the Appeasers are utterly incapable of explaining themselves. Far too many of them are incapable of anything more than whimpering and mewling about how much they hate Hillary Clinton and wish everyone else would, too; okay, that's not fair, since plenty of them are also capable of bawling, as well.

    Like I said: I can't win the votes of people who so require to own their children's sex lives as to disown their mortal remains over the defiance, and when it comes to getting rid of the identity politics that drive such behavior, what do the Appeasers want us to do? What is the middle ground? The compromise point? Oh, hey, I've got it, let's all sit around and talk about how awful Hillary fucking Clinton is.

    Really? That's it? Okay, then.

    How ... worthless.

    Do you have anything better to offer? We're not sacrificing anyone for the sake of an identity-driven suicide pact.

    Strategically, if they could have mustered an outright majority, they would have. The strategic question is whether this is the fire burning brightest or the dawn of a supremacist revival; empowering the latter doesn't help anyone but supremacists.

    Even if the Appeasers were actually capable of explaining their surrender, no, we're still not going down that road.

    And, you know, we've all known well-intended Appeasers, before; they're the ones we can talk with, appeal to. They are, at least, capable of engaging the discourse. In the end, well-intended persons comprehend the basic, "I don't know what to do, but we gotta try", pitch.

    And, uh, yeah, you know, history is quite clear that sacrificing women and people of color in hopes of picking off a handful of white, male, Christian suicide pact voters is a terrible idea. The best we can hope for is a good ol' boy Democratic emblem of rape culture signing right-wing budgets and welfare "reform". Bill Clinton oversaw DADT and signed DoMA. And then voters kicked out fake Republicans in favor of the real thing. You know, like they do from time to time.

    We're not doing that again.

    Either way, you can't sacrifice enough women and black people to avoid such outcomes if such outcomes are what people want.

    That you would try pretty much makes the point.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,957
    So they didn't fuck up? Somebody controls the media, after all.
    You can't control any of this stuff except nominating Clinton - so if that's your criterion the only people who fucked up were the ones who voted to nominate Clinton. Certainly not Hillary herself, as she didn't vote for herself in any primary except one.
    But none of them are responsible, according to you, except for the ones who nominated Clinton. Which would make the ordinary Democratic primary voter the one most to blame for Trump.

    You end up blaming the people who did the most to prevent Trump's election for his election. That's a familiar line, on Fox News, for assigning blame when Republicans create disasters.

    Or we could accept your contention that the unelectable candidate is responsible for not realizing that in advance: in which case Sanders is responsible - for being too lame a candidate to beat even Hillary, and not realizing it so he could get out of the way and get a better candidate to run.
     
    Tiassa likes this.
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Yet again your delusion. What supremacism is there is demanding single payer healthcare, free college, progressive taxation, no taking of corporate money for politians?


    Aaah he won, majority or not. And it is people like you that helps grow this "supremacism"

    Who am I requiring be left behind?

    Yeah white, straight cisgendered males whom are poor, feel cut off, rightfully so, heck we can extend that to simply whites both male and female, whom are poor, feel cut off, rightfully so. Until people like you accept them despite there lack of "diversity" we will keep losing to the republicans.

    Why are they part of this suicide pact, huum? why? Could it be because people like you reject them simply because of their race, sexual preference and gender identity?

    IS she president now? No. So maybe we should analzyse why. The first thing we could all agree on is that she fucked up, and that we should try our best NOT to promote a candidate liker her next time.

    How am I sacrificing women and blacks? and how is your strategy of letting the republicans win again and again not sacrificing EVERYONE?
     
  12. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    I think I specified the media fucked up, just not as much as Hillary Clinton.

    Oh they deserve a whole lot of blame yes, blames goes around.

    Oh really, if they did not vote for Bernie then they did not do the most to prevent Trump.

    Oh boy is my anti-smoking stance also familiar to the Nazis?

    Lets take a moment and pretend Bernie did not run, Hillary still would have likely lost to Trump. Lets take a moment and imagine Trump did not run, Hillary would have most certainly lost to Cruz. Now had Hillary not run on the other hand we would have a democrat, likely Bidden, as president now. So the moral of the story was Hillary was the worse candidate we could put up in 2016, and anyone that did not see that is to blame for our present reality.
     
  13. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The main difference between the Republican and Democratic party approach, to social issues, is connected to the old saying; "If you give a man a fish he will be hungry again tomorrow. If you teach him to fish, he can feed himself, forever."

    The Democrats like to be motherly, and cater to its citizen children, by feeding them fish each day. This approach never seems to solve the problem but rather tends to perpetuate the problem, so government can grow. It is like a mother whose baby boy, is now a man, but she still cooks and cleans behind her adult son, so he never has to grow up. He can be her baby, forever. They can stay together, forever. The Republican approach seems less charitable, but it is designed to create self sufficiency. It is more like the Dad who expects his son to start standing like a man. First he has to cut the apron strings, to his mothers, who does not what her son to leave. She will try to sabotage his exit.

    If you look at the war against poverty, the fish each day approach, has resulted in the percent of poor not changing in 50 years. This is in spite of spending $trillions on the daily fish ration. Nothing can change, because nobody but mother government, knows how to fish. Mother is not trying to teach fishing to her sons and daughters, less her son and daughters leave and go on their own. She is being selfish at a deeper level out of fear of an empty nest syndrome. The Republican approach is to give incentives to learn to fish. One way is to not make it too easy for the young adult to feel dependent. The children need to feel restless so they explore outside the nest. As they learn to fish, out of necessity, the rate of poverty and hunger goes down, with less resources needed.

    Look at the basic family unit. Which is preferred by any family, children who cannot leave the nest, or children who can leave to become their own head of households? It depends on the attitude of the mother, whether she does this for herself or for her children. Any child would be happier if they felt self sufficient, but could also stay in contact with their mother.

    Democrats have anger issues, due to not being self actualized. They are the adult children who are still being tended to by mom government. This path is easier and does have its benefits. However, but the lack of self actualization or fishing skills, makes them resentful. They can't nag at mom; their own party, since they still need her due to their situation of dependency. So dad; Republicans, becomes their scape goat since he threatens to have mom stop cooking and cleaning. But if they flow with the temporary inconvenience, and redirect themselves to self actualization; learn to fish, they can find their inner happiness. Mom is trying to sabotage this, less she be alone.

    If you solved the poverty problem, the Democrats fear a huge loss of voters. The new fishermen will seek the advice and council go those who are best at the sport; Republicans. Mother will sabotage this, like a mother's when her dependent son, attempts to leave. She will use bogeymen and fear to prevent his healthful escape.
     
  14. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    wellwisher, lets take the scenario of robots doing the fishing, republicans answer "Well the man needs to learn how to fish better, or learn something else, no on our dime though, fuck him" democrats answer "just give the man fish"
     
  15. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    So... what happens when you take the mans fishing rod away, piss on his fish, snap his legs, and stab him in the spleen...?

    Because that's what the GOP is doing (trying to do) to the everyday average man, by taking away access to affordable health care, further defanging consumer protections, giving further tax breaks to the ultra wealthy, shifting more tax burden to the middle and lower class, and generally going "Well I got mine, why should I give a damn if you survive?" to those not on "their level".
     
  16. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    No no it is worse then that even its "Well I got mine, thanks to my dad and his million dollar loan, fuck you and pull yourself up by your bootstraps!"
     
  17. Kittamaru Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Adieu, Sciforums. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,938
    You forgot to add that they took away our bootstraps... and our boots!
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    28,957
    But voting for Bernie was even more to blame than voting for Hillary - it weakened Hillary in the general, and imposed a lame-ass candidate who couldn't even beat Hillary on the primary field instead of someone who could get the job done and keep us from Trump.
    We would have had a chance of nominating a better candidate, somebody capable of beating Hillary. Instead, we got Trump.
    1) Most of trhe people who didn't vote for Bernie are non-voters or Republicans.
    2) Voting for Bernie is what got us Trump, according to you. People who voted for losers are to blame for the winners, remember?
    Still a bit vague on how Clinton fucked up - she had one vote in the primary, one in the general, right? She owns no TV stations, radio shows, any of the communication stuff. She ran as herself, didn't con anyone. ?
     
  19. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,848
    Then it's his fault for not having a gun, per the GOP.
     
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,854
    #bullshit | #WhatTheyVotedFor

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Click because the Devil is underhanded.

    I'm calling bullshit: If you're this far into the discussion and genuinely think that's the problem, then you need to learn to pay attention.

    Is there something about your answers making sense that offends your delicate sensibilities.

    See, really, this part is just trolling. After you spend months bawling about evil women and oppressed white, straight, cisgendered men, what is the purpose of your pretense? Are you really so incompetent? Because if not, why would you go out of your way to depict yourself that way?

    And there you answer your own question:

    Tiassa: White, straight, cisgendered males who feel somehow cut off by the prospect of a more perfect justice in American society are the problem. The white, straight, cisgendered males who don't feel threatened by the prospect of a more perfect justice voted for Hillary Clinton, by the way.

    ElectricFetus: Yeah white, straight cisgendered males whom are poor, feel cut off, rightfully so, heck we can extend that to simply whites both male and female, whom are poor, feel cut off, rightfully so. Until people like you accept them despite there lack of "diversity" we will keep losing to the republicans.​

    You just argued for white supremacism. You just argued for male supremacism.

    And since you just reiterated your own standing message, it seems even more ridiculous that you should ask, "Who am I requiring be left behind?"

    Are you aware of discussion among historians and historical philosophers regarding the difference between what happened and what people think happened? This is a long issue that you apparently do not comprehend; this would be surprising in a party hand, but not in a provocateur.

    Yes, we get that some people feel as if they are rejected "simply because of their race, sexual preference, and gender identity". But if these people White, straight, cisgendered males who feel somehow cut off by the prospect of a more perfect justice in American society, a straightforward practical conflict arises, and, again, your apparent ignorance of the issue would be surprising in a studied party hand, but not in a two-bit provocateur.

    The basic conflict is one of purpose and utility. Like the father who would disown his dead sons, you're talking about people whose votes we aren't going to win. That is to say, if Democrats should abandon women and people of color so that a few of these supremacists will join up, then no, we're not following that path.

    There is, of course, a reason why Appeasers can't explain themselves.

    We could all agree on that. We could also all agree to go shoot ourselves.

    Well, you just did it again in this post, as noted above. You want us to appeal to the white, straight, cisgendered, male bloc that feels threatened by the fundamental purposes of our society—e.g., establishment of justice toward a more perfect union, or, as I had phrased it, a more perfect justice. There comes a point where, functionally, even the Constitution cannot accommodate these people. You've railed against identity politics, but focus your advocacy on straight, white, cisgendered males. You want Democrats to support candidate who buckle on human rights, because surrendering human rights is one of the things they need to do in order to attract these voters, and no, we're not going down that road.

    After all, we'll accept their votes despite their "lack of 'diversity'", but we cannot accommodate the lack of diversity supremacists require.

    Even the basic math is pretty stupid, unless you're relying on women to hang around despite your intended abuse. Given your opposition to human rights, and proposition that white, straight, cisgendered males who are poor rightfully feel threatened by the idea that women or people of color are equal under the law, your pretense of ignorance unto yourself makes an additional point, by its utter incompetence, why we're not following your prescribed narrow path.

    We fight, and sometimes we win, and sometimes we lose, but none of that matters if we follow a course whereby nothing ever gets better when we win, and the compromise point is how to make things worse, but not so much worse as the opposition wants.

    Part of your problem is that you insist on a right-wing narrative; that is what it is, but when it comes down to real results in real reality, your white supremacist and male supremacist fantasies are dangerously stupid. And the thing about stupidity is that other people aren't as stupid as you need them to be. If you were capable of demonstrating even the slightest comprehension of Democrats, liberals, or leftists ... well, that's just it, isn't it?
     
  21. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    No that is called an "out" as in your ejecting and refusing to state a specific problem in my argument.

    I have been kind enough to not ask you to make sense so far have I not?

    What reality do you live in? As for oppressed white, straight, cis, men: if they are poor, of which there are tens of millions in this country alone, then they are oppressed. If we focus on the poor that will help EVERYONE (except the rich, who don't need help) so again who am I requiring be left behind?


    ... How? I'm arguing for providing services for the poor, do you not want to provide services for the poor? Oh that right if they are white, straight, cis and male, then fuck them?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Nope, millions of these people voted for Obama, so we had and could again win them.
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...bama-supporters-also-voted-for-trump-n2244205
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/obama-trump-counties/

    I'm not arguing to abandon anyone, that is your strawman. As long as you and your ilk demonize a plurality of our population as "supremisist" simply because they are white, or straight, or cis or male, they won't vote democrat, and the republican will dominate.

    Yeah we could, but those two things are very different things.

    Is being in economic strife, poor and jobless mean "feels threatened by the fundamental purposes of our society"?

    Well that is because that is the demographic we have lost to such an extend that the republicans now dominate everything and even with a pig boar moronic narcissistic ego manic as president.

    What human rights? Should not healthcare be a human right, should not education be a human right?

    Uniformity of thought is not diversity even if it comes in a multitude of different looking people.

    Wow, what a strawman! My position is that white, stright, cisgender, males, heck just whites, that a significant percentage of them, "feel theatened" by being poor. White people that have no job security, who have seen their income drop year by year despite working more and more hours, who are in growing debt, these are the people we lost and yet we are suppose to be the party of the working class! We lost them because we have people like you that think each and every one of these people don't really have problems because they are white, and worse are simply racist scum, simply because they are white.

    That is already what we do, we elected corporatist moderate democrats who get so very little economic progress done that enough voters conclude they might as well vote republican.

    What right wing narrative? You construct these spiteful strawmen, but present no evidence or even logical argument.
     
  22. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Had Bernie not run, Hillary would still have lost. Also losing the primary means nothing about performance in the general election, the polls showed Bernie had far higher leads over Trump, had we selected him our chances of winning against trump would have been much better, and every primary voter that did not accept that and voted for Hillary instead is to blame.

    Oh by all means suggest a better candidate, Warren?, I tried.

    Come now this is contrived! People who voted for losers of the general election in the primary are to blame. Lets say we have two paths before us, and we take a vote and decide to take one path, and that path we finds out leads to our doom, thus the people the voted for that path are to blame.

    Gee, she could have not had a private email server for one. Yes she ran as her self, and she is a corporatist war hawk moderate, neo-liberal, she fucked up in running for president! Had she not run we would all be better off, her inability to realize that it was not her time and never would be her time is the fuck up.
     
  23. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Just grab your dick and pull!
     

Share This Page