CandyCoatedClouds Posted January 5 Posted January 5 Also you guys are too harsh on Kamala. And she really didn't lose by much in terms of actual votes. 75 to 77 in a country of 240 million eligible voters isn't terrible, that's actually pretty close. She was a mixed woman who had only five years of public recognition compared to Trump who has had 30 plus years of public recognition, a hit TV show, has been in a hit movie and was previously president already. It's incredibly difficult to go against that with only 110 days of running with an already unpopular administration. For all we know, she could be the Richard Nixon of our time. Lose a close race, sit out and election to be governor of California and then come back and win in 2032. Who knows 🤷♀️
ClashAndBurn Posted January 5 Posted January 5 5 hours ago, Bhabylon said: What's going on in this country rn? All the terrorism, planes being shot down, and public violence recently has been scary to see. every day, there's another scary story Whether it's a psyop or not, the government is predictably going to use it as a pretext for justifying pre-emptive strikes against Iran, possibly escalating to full-blown war (which would require reinstatement of the draft). Probably greater crackdowns domestically against protests and such as well. The FBI letting the Zionazi NY Post reporter into the New Orleans attacker's home would be a pretty big indicator for it being one, but I'm doubtful. I think our government seems to just be completely incompetent. Especially since it's being led by one of the most incompetent presidents of all time for the next two weeks 1
Gaia Posted January 5 Posted January 5 8 hours ago, CandyCoatedClouds said: Also you guys are too harsh on Kamala. And she really didn't lose by much in terms of actual votes. 75 to 77 in a country of 240 million eligible voters isn't terrible, that's actually pretty close. She was a mixed woman who had only five years of public recognition compared to Trump who has had 30 plus years of public recognition, a hit TV show, has been in a hit movie and was previously president already. It's incredibly difficult to go against that with only 110 days of running with an already unpopular administration. For all we know, she could be the Richard Nixon of our time. Lose a close race, sit out and election to be governor of California and then come back and win in 2032. Who knows 🤷♀️ She was also getting a lot of flack from Biden's doing. I don't particularly care for her to run again (she was the best for what we had with Biden dropping out but we really need a charismatic candidate in 2028 who doesn't stumble on their words so much. We someone as good as wooing audiences as the Obamas were). I've blocked like 3 users in here for their constantly dooming and just hating everything and everyone at this point. Like, at a certain point it's not constructive criticism but just blatant vitriol and hatred and who cares for that. 1
Bears01 Posted January 5 Posted January 5 I'm sorry there's no convincing me that Kamala is a good candidate and should run again Hillary did better than her. Trump entered office in 2017 unpopular and disliked and the Democratic Party was poised to rise up due to that. Now? Trump enters office with the public being neutral to if not liking him, and the Democratic Party will be lucky to just get the house back in 2026. That's really it 3
CandyCoatedClouds Posted January 5 Posted January 5 (edited) 3 hours ago, Gaia said: She was also getting a lot of flack from Biden's doing. I don't particularly care for her to run again (she was the best for what we had with Biden dropping out but we really need a charismatic candidate in 2028 who doesn't stumble on their words so much. We someone as good as wooing audiences as the Obamas were). I've blocked like 3 users in here for their constantly dooming and just hating everything and everyone at this point. Like, at a certain point it's not constructive criticism but just blatant vitriol and hatred and who cares for that. Yeah that's my biggest gripe with the thread for the last several months. Too much trashing and dooming and glooming and nothing constructive or interesting to replace that I know we're mad that Donald won and Kamala wasn't the world's strongest candidate but this type of vitriol makes you roll your eyes whenever you see it. Edited January 5 by CandyCoatedClouds
ClashAndBurn Posted January 5 Posted January 5 (edited) 47 minutes ago, CandyCoatedClouds said: Yeah that's my biggest gripe with the thread for the last several months. Too much trashing and dooming and glooming and nothing constructive or interesting to replace that I know we're mad that Donald won and Kamala wasn't the world's strongest candidate but this type of vitriol makes you roll your eyes whenever you see it. The Democratic Party deserves every ounce of the roasting they've earned for their humiliating loss. Kamala Harris lost worse than Hillary. She literally lost the popular vote. To a felon convicted on 34 counts. That is EMBARRASSING! That is not something you just bounce back and recover from, especially with the Dems' usual prescribed method of chasing Republicans as they move further and further to the right. Demanding blind positivity like Gaia is just another way to stick your heads in the sand and deny that your repudiation was decisive and will have lasting effects for decades to come because your party only ever nominates failures and losers. Like, ok, yall assume the pendulum is going to just swing back to Dems because that's how it always works, right? Y'all won't accomplish anything. Senate Dems are done for forever. And when every Dem president from now on is a lame duck who will never be able to even confirm another SCOTUS justice ever again, let alone a cabinet or anything at all… they won't get re-elected. Edited January 5 by ClashAndBurn 1
Communion Posted January 5 Posted January 5 5 hours ago, Gaia said: I've blocked like 3 users in here for their constantly dooming and just hating everything and everyone at this point. Like, at a certain point it's not constructive criticism but just blatant vitriol and hatred and who cares for that. THIS...from YOU?
CandyCoatedClouds Posted January 5 Posted January 5 34 minutes ago, ClashAndBurn said: The Democratic Party deserves every ounce of the roasting they've earned for their humiliating loss. Kamala Harris lost worse than Hillary. She literally lost the popular vote. To a felon convicted on 34 counts. That is EMBARRASSING! That is not something you just bounce back and recover from, especially with the Dems' usual prescribed method of chasing Republicans as they move further and further to the right. Demanding blind positivity like Gaia is just another way to stick your heads in the sand and deny that your repudiation was decisive and will have lasting effects for decades to come because your party only ever nominates failures and losers. Like, ok, yall assume the pendulum is going to just swing back to Dems because that's how it always works, right? Y'all won't accomplish anything. Senate Dems are done for forever. And when every Dem president from now on is a lame duck who will never be able to even confirm another SCOTUS justice ever again, let alone a cabinet or anything at all… they won't get re-elected. The democratic party sucks and is too right wing and is bought by corporate donors, I don't disagree with that. If I had my way we'd have at least a four party system, lobbying would be illegal and there'd be no money in politics. However we don't live in that world. All we can do is try to campaign and vote in people like AOC and Jasmine Crockett, younger people who actually care. However when does the ragging on the party stop with you and we actually talk about how we're going to move forward and what can be done instead of this destructive pity party that's going on in here held by people with "I told you so know it all" attitudes like what you're doing now. When does that stop? Please let me know. 1
Communion Posted January 5 Posted January 5 (edited) 1 hour ago, CandyCoatedClouds said: Too much trashing and dooming and glooming and nothing constructive or interesting to replace that I mean, this could be tea, which is why I focus more on how the left will replace liberalism because socialism means a radically optimistic () view of humanity that most people are good and good (the left) will prevail over evil (capitalism, whether protected by liberals or conservatives). But if I post about how Bernie crafting policy to stop the crony capitalism of billionaires wanting H-1B visas and how this is both good and the future of the Dems, the good sis Ghostbox will have an aneurysm from whatever DC-based thinktank office he posts on ATRL from and still complain about 'negativity' too. Edited January 5 by Communion 1
CandyCoatedClouds Posted January 5 Posted January 5 37 minutes ago, Communion said: I mean, this could be tea, which is why I focus more on how the left will replace liberalism because socialism means a radically optimistic () view of humanity that most people are good and good (the left) will prevail over evil (capitalism, whether protected by liberals or conservatives). But if I post about how Bernie crafting policy to stop the crony capitalism of billionaires wanting H-1B visas and how this is both good and the future of the Dems, the good sis Ghostbox will have an aneurysm from whatever DC-based thinktank office he posts on ATRL from and still complain about 'negativity' too. That's also a problem. Corporate dem thinking a disease to the party that will take ages to purge.
Vermillion Posted January 5 Posted January 5 In case the other thread goes nowhere, I have to post this here 2
Bears01 Posted January 5 Posted January 5 1 hour ago, CandyCoatedClouds said: The democratic party sucks and is too right wing and is bought by corporate donors, I don't disagree with that. If I had my way we'd have at least a four party system, lobbying would be illegal and there'd be no money in politics. However we don't live in that world. All we can do is try to campaign and vote in people like AOC and Jasmine Crockett, younger people who actually care. However when does the ragging on the party stop with you and we actually talk about how we're going to move forward and what can be done instead of this destructive pity party that's going on in here held by people with "I told you so know it all" attitudes like what you're doing now. When does that stop? Please let me know. I think democrats at least showing signs of learning from their mistakes would go a long way. The only prominent Dems I can think of who's shown legit signs that the party needs to change (outside of the usual) is….Chris Murphy?
Communion Posted January 5 Posted January 5 (edited) 37 minutes ago, VOSS said: The claim that these view points are "incoherent" and at odds with one another reveals the affluent background most liberal, right-wing Democrats are coming from. Most Americans are far more sympathetic to those coming into the US via a claim of economic strife as entry - and doing so in spite of the intense brutalization that they face - than they are of highly affluent, highly educated migrants seeking to take top job positions. The issue seems to be not of some hypocrisy on Sanders' end and more-so your discomfort that most Americans are more sympathetic to low-income migrants than high-income migrants and how the proclaimed logic of the Big Tech class ("most Americans just LOVE the innovation data analysts from abroad bring") was never true. If many Americans are suddenly antagonistic to highly-educated and affluent Americans, why wouldn't they also be this antagonistic and hostile to highly-educated Bangladeshis, Chinese or Indians working in America? Cause these are the "good" migrants who have some earned merit over the "bad" migrants? I thought Dems suddenly decided immigration was bad and we needed to basically shut down the border? I mean, you can see it in most of the QTs to the original tweet: "So Sanders likes the migrants who bring no value and hates those who bring VALUE??". Most Americans are never going to consider being a data analyst for a firm or a software engineer for some AI company to be an essential worker. Even neoliberals in the UK have understood the discussion on foreign labor is better propped up highlighting things like foreign-born carers, nurses & doctors. Edited January 5 by Communion 1 2
Wonderland Posted January 5 Posted January 5 23 hours ago, 19SLAYty9 said: I've been thinking and the whole "we can never nominate a woman for the decade" thing is bs. Do you think in 2004 anyone thought the 2008 nominee would be a black man running on change and go on to win? I actually think the worse off that things get under Trump, the more likely a woman does win in 2028 Exactly. Both times Democrats ran women, they chose establishment nominees who were then stuck defending an administration that was already in power and declining hard in popularity. A woman running who is unburdened by what has been ( ) and isn't facing those political headwinds would get over the line. There's a good chance the next 4 years mirror the 2004-8 timeline - albeit with even more corruption. 2
ClashAndBurn Posted January 5 Posted January 5 2 hours ago, CandyCoatedClouds said: The democratic party sucks and is too right wing and is bought by corporate donors, I don't disagree with that. If I had my way we'd have at least a four party system, lobbying would be illegal and there'd be no money in politics. However we don't live in that world. All we can do is try to campaign and vote in people like AOC and Jasmine Crockett, younger people who actually care. However when does the ragging on the party stop with you and we actually talk about how we're going to move forward and what can be done instead of this destructive pity party that's going on in here held by people with "I told you so know it all" attitudes like what you're doing now. When does that stop? Please let me know. We tried talking about what needed to be done to improve our standing after Hillary lost. Four years of discussion, and all that led to was the Democrats doubling down on their love for their party establishment and picking a candidate who was even worse than Hillary. It's kind of a film we've seen before. And we definitely didn't like the ending We're kind of spinning our wheels until Biden's lame duck period is over and a new DNC chair gets selected. If either Wikler or Martin end up being the one chosen, then great. There's something to be hopeful there. If it's O'Malley, then it's kind of meh, but so were Perez and Jaime Harrison. Skoufis would be about as detrimental and despicable a choice as Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Thankfully he's a long shot, but in the event he was selected? Oh Lordy. My current level of nihilist doomerism will look like shitposting in comparison. 2
CandyCoatedClouds Posted January 5 Posted January 5 1 hour ago, ClashAndBurn said: We tried talking about what needed to be done to improve our standing after Hillary lost. Four years of discussion, and all that led to was the Democrats doubling down on their love for their party establishment and picking a candidate who was even worse than Hillary. It's kind of a film we've seen before. And we definitely didn't like the ending We're kind of spinning our wheels until Biden's lame duck period is over and a new DNC chair gets selected. If either Wikler or Martin end up being the one chosen, then great. There's something to be hopeful there. If it's O'Malley, then it's kind of meh, but so were Perez and Jaime Harrison. Skoufis would be about as detrimental and despicable a choice as Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Thankfully he's a long shot, but in the event he was selected? Oh Lordy. My current level of nihilist doomerism will look like shitposting in comparison. You mean your posting could possibly get even worse? We all need to bow our heads in prayer for a miracle 🙏 1
Recommended Posts