Trump Part VIII

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why did the Democrats punt on the Kansas 4th, which was very winnable tonight? Is it really just because it was a true leftist who beat the establishment Dem in the primary?
 
I reckon this is a bit simplistic, the 'left' isn't this one mass, many of us ('us' as in those of a similar political persuasion) do not share the same goals as you/the Democrats and we never will. For the same reason, we oppose(d) Clinton not because we deem her 'imperfect' or whatever, but because we're against her full stop. There is an important distinction to be made here. This would be on much the same plane as me opposing Malcolm Turnbull in Australia.

So then, if you were an American you'd having either voted third party, write some one in, or what ________?

Because that kind of action did add to Hillary losing. Now when i found out post election that Hillary didn't even go to
? Wisconsin, or which ever other rust-belt state(s) - I just screamed in frustration! What idiot suggested she skip them! Arg!

ADDED>> a major factor to was voter suppression and we'll never know just how much that was a a factor. But it was. :|

Oh and same Texas judge still voted down this new voter ID law. (yes!)


Now Vlad happen to catch your recent posts in the Aussie thread...

Just what kind of leftist policies do you espouse? Even The Left has a continuum of views.

I consider myself a liberal-progressive, who also has an interest in Nordic Democratic Socialism. Is NDS too milk- toasty for you?
 
Last edited:
Why did the Democrats punt on the Kansas 4th, which was very winnable tonight? Is it really just because it was a true leftist who beat the establishment Dem in the primary?



I understand that this election was making news, and twitter feeds were saying how the GOP are worried, but at the end of the day it's a Republican district. There's been no D win in over 20 years.

This idea that it was "very winnable" is a stretch, but I'm curious as to why you think the Dems "punted"?
 
.
And that's the WHOLE POINT!! Throwing away an eminently qualified candidate that lines up in almost every way for you, but because of a few stances you don't like, you end up ushering in freaking Donald TRUMP!

Meant to say something like this in previous post ( tired)

While I think the policy/ issues divide between Leftists and Liberal Democraats is more like between 75%/25% - 65%/35% (vs 90%/10%)...

to let even that amount of disagreement get in the way of letting this Greedy, sexist, racist, xenophobia Dumkoft get in the Oval Office!?! Argggg!
 
I understand that this election was making news, and twitter feeds were saying how the GOP are worried, but at the end of the day it's a Republican district. There's been no D win in over 20 years.

This idea that it was "very winnable" is a stretch, but I'm curious as to why you think the Dems "punted"?
Compare the amount of money the GOP invested vs. the amount of money the Democratic Party invested.
 
So, anyone who uses a phrase like "Holocaust Camp" doesn't seem to be blowing a neo-Nazi dog whistle; that person is simply a blithering idiot. However, on FB, Spicer blamed the media and said that he wanted to clarify that Hitler didn't gas his own people. I guess because Jews, LGBT, and gypsys weren't real Germans. Which is kind of a neo-Nazi dog whistle.

Oh, and the WH didn't mention Jews on Holocaust Rememberance Day.
 
Last edited:
So, anyone who uses a phrase like "Holocaust Camp" doesn't seem to be blowing a neo-Nazi dog whistle; that person is simply a blithering idiot. However, on FB, Spicer blamed the media and said that he wanted to clarify that Hitler didn't gas his own people. I guess because Jews, LGBT, and gypsys weren't real Germans. Which is kind of a neo-Nazi dog whistle.

Oh, and the WH didn't mention Jews on Holocaust Rememberance Day.
So you're saying Spicey is #TeamBannon and not #TeamKush?
 
Why did the Democrats punt on the Kansas 4th, which was very winnable tonight? Is it really just because it was a true leftist who beat the establishment Dem in the primary?

Come on, this is a joke.

That district was +27 Trump and the Dems came within 6.8% last night. Hello?? That is HUGE.

It was not in any way a winnable district. It's the district around Wichita, which is one of the most solid red districts around. To come under a 10 point spread in an election where the Dems did not start pouring $ in until about 10 days before the race should be terrifying to the Republicans.

This is how you chip away, and any sort of suggestion that this is punting is totally divorced from the reality of this district.
 
yeah, why is this not a bigger news story?

Because someone was pulled off of a plane!!! While that story should be covered, it pales in comparison to what else is going on. I also think Americans struggle to emphasize with the plight over other cultures (and possibly the same could be said vice versa).

As for the Kansas election, I just don't see how it ever can go blue? It reminds me of that sketch, maybe it was Key and Peele, where doctors are performing a heart transplant, or had just finished.

When the patient awakens, the doctor informs him that his life was saved due to Obamacare. The patient gets visibly upset, takes his hand and rips into his surgical wound pulling the heart out and claiming he won't let big government into his body. He then dies.

That's how I see parts of the US, it doesn't matter if the opposing side actually helps them they won't accept it because its.....the other side / bad guys / libtards
 
Come on, this is a joke.

That district was +27 Trump and the Dems came within 6.8% last night. Hello?? That is HUGE.

It was not in any way a winnable district. It's the district around Wichita, which is one of the most solid red districts around. To come under a 10 point spread in an election where the Dems did not start pouring $ in until about 10 days before the race should be terrifying to the Republicans.

This is how you chip away, and any sort of suggestion that this is punting is totally divorced from the reality of this district.

And it seems to fit into a narrative, at least that IMO around here and on other "progressive" boards that if you can't get exactly what you want RIGHT NOW, it's a complete failure.

As you stated (and I quoted) to go into one of the most conservative regions in the USA, and make a dent, is still progress right? If things continue the way they are on a national and state level, that 6.8% can easily be made up in the next year and a half if the Dems run a good campaign. That is a huge question mark.

But to think the Dems were going to win? I'm sure the media was hyping it up too.
 
It goes back to the Howard Dean strategy (how funny is it that a scream killed his campaign given Trump's behaviour?) of competing in all 50 states. No you are not going to win Kansas outright, and you may not for decades, but you have to make inroads by engaging local people, the grassroots party, encouraging people to run in districts knowing full well that they have no shot but maybe they erode the difference by a couple of % points each time. The Republicans would have laughed at Texas being within Democratic reach, but here we are and it's very possible that Texas will go red-purple-blue within the next 10-12 years. Yes, that is largely demographics BUT if the Democrats weren't willing to invest time and money in building up districts that are going to be competitive in 3-4 election cycles, they probably wouldn't be.

I get the sense from some people on the left that they are positively giddy anytime the Democratic party doesn't achieve some goal that they've set. Look, personally I find this party way too far to the right, they are the equivalent of the Canadian conservatives so I am not a voter who would be drawn that way, though may approve of some fiscal policies. But there is also such a thing as reality and the reality is that you don't go left in fucking Wichita 5 months after it goes +27 Trump. WTF honestly.
 
They just need to feel the BERN!!!!!

I agree on making the inroads in some of these states. There is a lot of unrest, anger, and just overall lack of trust towards the Government right now. GOP have done a wonderful job of spreading this, and creating it.

While the Dems may not stack up to what is considered "left" or "progressive", if they could just get their message under control they may be able to make bigger gains in 2018. While it sucks to say this, stop focusing on bathrooms, or being fucking offended by every little thing that comes out of Trump or some conservative, and focus on the economy. You can't protect people if you don't have any power to do so.

It just goes to show how far out of touch the Dems have been when it's so painfully obvious to see that the GOP idea of governing primarily hurts GOP voters. Yet they still vote for it.
 
Last edited:
It goes back to the Howard Dean strategy (how funny is it that a scream killed his campaign given Trump's behaviour?) of competing in all 50 states. No you are not going to win Kansas outright, and you may not for decades, but you have to make inroads by engaging local people, the grassroots party, encouraging people to run in districts knowing full well that they have no shot but maybe they erode the difference by a couple of % points each time. The Republicans would have laughed at Texas being within Democratic reach, but here we are and it's very possible that Texas will go red-purple-blue within the next 10-12 years. Yes, that is largely demographics BUT if the Democrats weren't willing to invest time and money in building up districts that are going to be competitive in 3-4 election cycles, they probably wouldn't be.

I get the sense from some people on the left that they are positively giddy anytime the Democratic party doesn't achieve some goal that they've set. Look, personally I find this party way too far to the right, they are the equivalent of the Canadian conservatives so I am not a voter who would be drawn that way, though may approve of some fiscal policies. But there is also such a thing as reality and the reality is that you don't go left in fucking Wichita 5 months after it goes +27 Trump. WTF honestly.

No anitram, you have to oppose anything and anyone the neo-liberal, establishment, Democratic Party oligarchs support FULL STOP, to be a "true progressive". This guy calls himself a progressive and then takes DNC money. Now he is a corporate SHILL!!! :|
 
Yes.

Any press secretary who comes out and throws a tantrum about the size of the inauguration crowd has to be #TeamBannon.

Only white nationalists are so petulant.
The irony of ironies will be when #TeamBannon ultimately brings down the whole shebang. The Russian connections are clearly in the #TeamKush camp. If they push Bannon out, does anyone have any doubt that he'll turn on them?
 
The irony of ironies will be when #TeamBannon ultimately brings down the whole shebang. The Russian connections are clearly in the #TeamKush camp. If they push Bannon out, does anyone have any doubt that he'll turn on them?



In a way, I've always thought that was his plan b. He was going to destroy from within one way or another.
 
Come on, this is a joke.

That district was +27 Trump and the Dems came within 6.8% last night. Hello?? That is HUGE.

It was not in any way a winnable district. It's the district around Wichita, which is one of the most solid red districts around. To come under a 10 point spread in an election where the Dems did not start pouring $ in until about 10 days before the race should be terrifying to the Republicans.

This is how you chip away, and any sort of suggestion that this is punting is totally divorced from the reality of this district.
The dems could have started earlier, and pushed harder. The fact is, there aren't a lot of seats available on 2018 and everyone of them matters.

More to the point, though, it's refreshing to see that in a non election year race, the dems showed up en masse. The Republicans stayed home.
 
Why would anyone on the left be against Clinton "full stop" when her policies lined up with about 90% of what the majority of the left stands for?

How? Who is the majority of the left? More importantly, who is the left to you?

Add to that - she had a far, FAR stronger history of actually working to help people and push progressive values in and out of politics than Sanders.

This is vague, do you have a source for this? You've built up this cultish image of Hillary Clinton in a number of your posts and I have to wonder if your soul has been inhabited by Peter Daou's Twitter account. :wink:

And that's the WHOLE POINT!! Throwing away an eminently qualified candidate that lines up in almost every way for you, but because of a few stances you don't like, you end up ushering in freaking Donald TRUMP!

For fuck's sake, she has and does not. Understand this, our views are markedly different. You can throw up your exclamation marks all you want but that won't change a thing.

I don't care so much that we clash on this issue and are unlikely to ever see eye to eye, but just comprehend the idea that my political views are fundamentally opposed to that of Clinton's and those in her party.

So anyone who was against Clinton "full stop" needs to explain how Trump or Jill Stein (LMFAO :lol::lol::lol: ) would have made a better president.

We're not obligated to.

Also thank you for stating one of the most asinine schools of thought that brewed up this past election cycle. That there suddenly was this self-proclaimed group of "true progressives" and that fancied themselves having a completely different set of beliefs than those of us that are life-long liberals. In reality, our views line up about 90%. It was a ridiculous, immature tantrum of "us against the 'establishment'" bullshit, that most of us grow out of, fed by a social media construct that fed it in heaps to the tormented young, white privileged masses.

I don't ever recall branding myself a "true progressive" and no, we are not very similar politically at all save for being socially progressive (ie. LGBT rights). Also, the idea that being against the 'establishment' is indicative of white privilege makes no sense.

Now Vlad happen to catch your recent posts in the Aussie thread...

Just what kind of leftist policies do you espouse? Even The Left has a continuum of views.

I consider myself a liberal-progressive, who also has an interest in Nordic Democratic Socialism. Is NDS too milk- toasty for you?

Simply put, I'm an anti-capitalist. Therefore, I am fundamentally opposed to the centrist liberalism of the Democratic Party. Whilst this ideal of the Scandinavian social democracies is quite admirable at their peak (many thanks to the strength of their trade unions), it's worth stating that a great deal of it has been eroded over the past few decades so I guess it's a mighty disappointment - but more or less reflects the state of the world at the moment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom