Make Liberalism Great Again

[SneekyNinja]

Here's Sanders saying Hillary should've won and the electoral college system is a joke.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/13/sanders-backs-trump-protests-questions-electoral-college/93767186/

 

[schuylaar]

I don't think we'll ever know everything that happened. 3,000,000 votes is a big number though, so I can't draw any reasonable conclusions that the DNC swung the election to Hillary by themselves. We do know that some of them tried, however. That's not acceptable to me, no matter the impact it had.

One of the other problems is the super delegates. There were quite a few states that Bernie won (some by large margins), and yet Hillary walked away with the majority of the delegates from those states. What exactly is the point of voting when super delegates can pick the winner no matter what the people have to say? The DNC, if nothing else, should exist to get out the vote. Do they not see how a rigged primary process where party elites trump the will of the people will have the opposite effect? People feel disenfranchised when they take the time to vote, their horse "wins", only to be told by a handful of super delegates that they know better.

The 3M?

You can thank the media and their careful manipulation of exit polling data (by not even reporting the ferver for Sanders) along with announcing contest results prior to other contests completeton strategy.

They basically asked the DNC 'what can we do for you'?

DOCUMENTED!

 

[schuylaar]

he also did better with college educated whites than expected, although that voting bloc did move overall to clinton.

keep in mind, people like tbonejack and desert dude (may he RIP) claim they are "college educated". and those dumb fucks apparently attended different classes than the rest of us, because they are even more bitter and resentful of women, black people, muslims, gay people, hispanics, and other minority groups than those uneducated backwoods fucks i grew up with.

then there are women like @Flaming Pie and @roseypeach . just look at these wastes of humanity. both of them are on government healthcare, and voted for the guy who will strip them of the welfare they depend on. roseypeach even stated, unironically, that welfare was so unfair to white people and so catering to minorities, even as she herself takes her disability check and her food stamps, and her free medicare, and is white. there are a lot of stupid white women out there.

College educated whites? Do you understand what this means?

They didn't WANT her..They weren't 'with her' in 2008..AND 2016!

Stop trying to make a square peg fit a round hole.

You're way smarter than that.

 

[Rob Roy]

What about people who claim authority as a owner of a business. My way or fucking away approach ?

You own yourself and your justly acquired property but you don't own others or their property. The imaginary distinctions others try to make don't change that.

You absolutely, positively should have been born around 1795.

Your views totally ignore the complexities of modern society and the 1000 shades of gray between black and white.

Freedom and voluntary human interactions as the means to achieve it, are timeless.

Using, "the complexities of modern society" to create involuntary human relations and deprive individuals of their self determination is a cluster fuck chimera of rationalization.

That rationalization is the basis of most of the world's conflicts and is founded in an impossibility. That being, that a central coercion based "authority" can use a coercive means to prevent people from using coercion. Circular arguments were dumb in 1795 and remain dumb today.

I look forward to your thoughtful reply as to why involuntary human interactions are superior to voluntary ones.

 

[Rob Roy]

I get where you are coming from, honestly I do. And you would be right if this were colonial williamsburg era and the nations population was a few hundred thousand. But it's not. People don't need rules, society does. And you need someone to govern those rules.

Should the first rule of human interactions be that all people have an equal right to self determine ?

Should the corollary to that be that no person has a right to use offensive force against another or their justly acquired property?

If you answer yes, then at some point in order to do the things you defend as necessary, you must ditch the ideas (above) and rationalize the use of offensive force as a means, which is contrary to the primary rules mentioned above.

If you answer no, then you are advocating "chaos" and "might makes right".


The question isn't whether we should model a society on voluntary human interactions and disavow the use of offensive force, it is "how would it be accomplished and would it be better than the present mode" ?

 

[Unclebaldrick]

Those dumb racists seem to be making a pretty good living. What's wrong with this picture?

Nothing really. Dumb racists should be able to earn a living so they can send their kids to school. Some of their kids will learn something. I married one. She's cool.

 

[see4]

Should the first rule of human interactions be that all people have an equal right to self determine ?

Should the corollary to that be that no person has a right to use offensive force against another or their justly acquired property?

If you answer yes, then at some point in order to do the things you defend as necessary, you must ditch the ideas (above) and rationalize the use of offensive force as a means, which is contrary to the primary rules mentioned above.

If you answer no, then you are advocating "chaos" and "might makes right".


The question isn't whether we should model a society on voluntary human interactions and disavow the use of offensive force, it is "how would it be accomplished and would it be better than the present mode" ?

Your word play is spectacular. And at face value one might agree with you. But let's look deeper into your salad. Yes, all humans should have equal right to self determine, but that is not the first rule of human interaction. The purpose of human interaction is for one side to gain something and the other to lose something, and in some cases both sides gain something but only upon mutual agreement. In neither scenario is it force coercion unless one side is intently forcing and the other intently accepting. In either case, both sides made their own self determination to accept the interaction.

Am I allowed to say penis now?

 

[Big_Lou]

But let's look deeper into your salad.

Am I allowed to say penis now?

 

[see4]

College educated whites? Do you understand what this means?

They didn't WANT her..They weren't 'with her' in 2008..AND 2016!

Stop trying to make a square peg fit a round hole.

You're way smarter than that.

1.6 million more Americans wanted Hillary Clinton as POTUS. Why is that a hard concept for you to understand? You're much smarter than that.

 

[Fogdog]

The 3M?

You can thank the media and their careful manipulation of exit polling data (by not even reporting the ferver for Sanders) along with announcing contest results prior to other contests completeton strategy.

They basically asked the DNC 'what can we do for you'?

DOCUMENTED!

link?

 

[Rob Roy]

Your word play is spectacular. And at face value one might agree with you. But let's look deeper into your salad. Yes, all humans should have equal right to self determine, but that is not the first rule of human interaction. The purpose of human interaction is for one side to gain something and the other to lose something, and in some cases both sides gain something but only upon mutual agreement. In neither scenario is it force coercion unless one side is intently forcing and the other intently accepting. In either case, both sides made their own self determination to accept the interaction.

Am I allowed to say penis now?

Thank you.

Yes, you can say "penis" now, but please don't overdo it.

 

[see4]

Thank you.

Yes, you can say "penis" now, but please don't overdo it.

So "erection" is unlimited uses, while "penis" is limited. Ok, I will be coerced into agreeing to that.

 

[Fogdog]

i have a little insight into the racist trump voters based on where i have lived in my life.

i grew up in a backwoods, new jersey town near the pennsylvania border. there used to be a textile, mines, manufacturing, etcetera.

this is the 2nd picture that comes up in an image search when you google it:

romney won that county 57%-41%, 25k votes to 18k votes.

trump won there by 61%-35%, 30k votes to 17k votes.

this county is like pretty much every county in pennsylvania outside of philly and pittsburgh, where hillary's margins were just as good as obama's (and even better than kerry's, and he won PA).

i guarantee you that they did not vote for trump in greater margins because they had "economic anxiety" or think trump is gonna bring back the textile. incomes in warren county average about $66,000 for a family. they are not hurting.

they voted in greater numbers for trump because they are backwards, racist, poorly educated morons. they resented obama a lot and they resented hillary even more. they long for the days of "married with children" again. they hate "the gays" and will say so openly. they hate blacks and jews too, but you'll rarely hear them say it openly. they are threatened by progress for some reason.

a few of us grew out of it, moved to different places, got college educations, and flourished. others just stayed in that shitty little town and got resentful.

multiply that 7k vote differential in places like these across a few dozen rural counties and it is just enough to overtake the cities.

aren't you basically saying that county would never have voted for a Democrat?
Your home county's median age in 2010 was 41.5 and trending older. This might explain the comfortable income. It's also true that Trump's voting block wasn't doing badly economically. Interestingly enough, Trump's supporters were economically anxious regardless of their economic status. Those that didn't like Trump were not as worried about it, again regardless of actual economic status.



https://www.theatlas.com/charts/BJyJ9Exn
Trump's supporter's economic anxiety was not based on reality but something else.

 

[schuylaar]

Its fine to have an opinion. As long as you recognize that is what it is. I have not seen enough facts to convince me that the entire DNC in secret colluded with Hillary Clinton and her entire campaign organization with enough clout to win by a 12% margin. What I saw -- and I can post links if you like -- were messages from a few truly incompetent underlings. I didn't even see any messages that implicate Wasserman. She was the head of the organization and responsible but I didn't see facts that put DWS in the collusion. So, yes, the DNC did collude but it was a small number of people.

Shouting back at me or calling me deluded won't do much to convince me. I'm basing what I think on facts that don't back up your claim. I'd appreciate some facts to help me understand your position, that is if you care to convince me.

It wasn't the entire DNC, it was the one in charge.

How do you not understand this?

 

[londonfog]

It wasn't the entire DNC, it was the one in charge.

How do you not understand this?

So why blame and take it out on Hillary if she was not the one who did it?

 

[Fogdog]

It wasn't the entire DNC, it was the one in charge.

How do you not understand this?

I don't understand what you are trying to say. One person. Who?

I re-read news articles published at the time. I just don't see how these banal wikileaks prove that Wasserman masterminded the downfall of Sanders through DNC cheating. I'm not convinced by your belief absent of facts. So, I'm asking for more than your mostly worthless opinion.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/damaging-emails-dnc-wikileaks-dump/story?id=40852448

She called Bernie an ass in one internal office mail.
In another internal office mail: She said Bernie has never been a Democrat and didn't understand what the party was trying to do.

Big woop. Is this the infernal puppet master that you are talking about?

 

[Fogdog]

The 3M?

You can thank the media and their careful manipulation of exit polling data (by not even reporting the ferver for Sanders) along with announcing contest results prior to other contests completeton strategy.

They basically asked the DNC 'what can we do for you'?

DOCUMENTED!

link?

 

[st0wandgrow]

I don't understand what you are trying to say. One person. Who?

I re-read news articles published at the time. I just don't see how these banal wikileaks prove that Wasserman masterminded the downfall of Sanders through DNC cheating. I'm not convinced by your belief absent of facts. So, I'm asking for more than your mostly worthless opinion.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/damaging-emails-dnc-wikileaks-dump/story?id=40852448

She called Bernie an ass in one internal office mail.
In another internal office mail: She said Bernie has never been a Democrat and didn't understand what the party was trying to do.

Big woop. Is this the infernal puppet master that you are talking about?

The DNC cut off his campaigns access to voter database files, didnt they?

 

[st0wandgrow]

I don't understand what you are trying to say. One person. Who?

I re-read news articles published at the time. I just don't see how these banal wikileaks prove that Wasserman masterminded the downfall of Sanders through DNC cheating. I'm not convinced by your belief absent of facts. So, I'm asking for more than your mostly worthless opinion.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/damaging-emails-dnc-wikileaks-dump/story?id=40852448

She called Bernie an ass in one internal office mail.
In another internal office mail: She said Bernie has never been a Democrat and didn't understand what the party was trying to do.

Big woop. Is this the infernal puppet master that you are talking about?

She used a down-ticket fundraising exception to pull in larger than allowable donations, (which are supposed to be used to fund other Democrats in house/senate/state bids) for her own campaign against Sanders.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670

 

[st0wandgrow]

I wonder if the outcome of the general election would have been different had she and the DNC not been caught with their hand in the cookie jar? She basically, unwittingly, reinforced Trumps narrative of "crooked Hillary", and in the process alienated millions of Bernie supporters.