Author Topic: random . . . randomness  (Read 499669 times)

Spoons of Victory ☣ ☢ ☠

  • Member
  • Posts: 7050
  • Lorem Ipsum
    • insta photo
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #4230 on: June 13, 2017, 02:52:01 pm »
simply by making it a critique of Trump and the crazy shit he said. 
hindsight is 20/20, but at the time it just seemed like: If i just repeat the insane things the other candidate has said, how could you get behind this guy

at the time, with the unbelievable things he said, I would have recommend reminding voters how insane your opponent is

Obviously that was a major flaw...overestimating the intelligence of the voting population
not coming at them with gut and emotion kind of stuff so that they could put on a bumper sticker and be aligned with

Quote

I'm ready for the Sanders wing of the Democratic party. 
It is interesting to see how this plays out.  One there are a lot of old leaders in the democratic party, there is a need for some new blood in management
question is...will they go establishment suck up...or go straight to the voters A-la sanders
Sanders wing of the democratic party just sounds weird as he NEVER supported anyone in the democratic party
...could be an uprising if democrats actually vote in the primaries

In my gut, I feel Donny is horrible and there could be some massively horrendous changes that will take generations to undo
He has gotten people (on both sides) very interested in civics and politics in general...and that is the only silver lining on this turd
mostly because the press has to keep explaining that what Trump is doing is without precedent or borderline illegal and explain why trump can't wave his wand and create a Muslim ban (see we all learned about the balance of power in the 3 branches)

in the end, there is no doubt if more people vote...let's say 65% of eligible voters show up in 2020 (I know I'm dreaming) ...the next president will surely be democratic

hey in 1960 it was a smidgen below 63%

 
Quote
Perriello is exciting because
....as he tries to express the progressive vision.
I didn't know about Avaaz, but I don't think it's easy to run from his house votes
looks to be a nail-biter according to the Oracle Nate Silver (although his stock is pretty low right now after the last election)
LAMF

Spoons of Victory ☣ ☢ ☠

  • Member
  • Posts: 7050
  • Lorem Ipsum
    • insta photo
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #4231 on: June 13, 2017, 02:52:56 pm »
Please explain the statement that Hillary was "the most qualified candidate in history."

why? I have an appointment to lie on some rocks and be jabbed with burning hot pokers I'd rather get to..

Translation: "I heard other people saying it, so I'm just parroting them."
oh you had to poke the bear...I predict a power point presentation to follow soon
LAMF

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 15617
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #4232 on: June 13, 2017, 04:04:07 pm »
Is this a joke?

Two terms as First Lady you know in the ........ WHITE HOUSE... with the President
Two terms in the Senate representing the 2nd or 3rd most important state including during 9-11
Four years as secretary of state


it is even more striking when you put it against you know:


nothing (CHeeto)

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14043
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #4233 on: June 13, 2017, 04:30:58 pm »
Sorry, but First Lady is not a real qualification.

She was certainly way more qualified and experienced than the dolt that won, but this oft-repeated line of "most qualified candidate in history" is specious, at best.

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 15617
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #4234 on: June 13, 2017, 04:58:09 pm »
Sorry, but First Lady is not a real qualification.

She was certainly way more qualified and experienced than the dolt that won, but this oft-repeated line of "most qualified candidate in history" is specious, at best.

First Lady is not a qualification? It doesn't give you experience knowing what goes on in the White House where -you know -the President works? Right-o she learned nothing being in the White House during her husband's presidency.. . Not to mention she was involved in the White House..she wasn't no Tammy Wynnette Stand by my man first lady....oh wait.   ;D

But what i said was most qualified meaning having the experience to know and do the job.... if you disagree the burden is on you to find somebody else you believe was more qualified...  lets go down the list... W? umm no. sorry... Bill? umm. no sorry... Bush Sr (a very good candidate.. hold on to that one).. Reagan? No.. actually being limited to political state experience does not trump being a US Senator and Secretary of State... Carter? No way..Ford? Nixon? LBJ? A good candidate but his experience while tremendous was limited to the House...Hillary had experience in the Senate and as SoS...JFK? Ike? Truman? FDR (Subsecretary of the Navy and Gov of NY.. ok not too bad.. but Governor for one term.. and subsecretary of the navy ain't Secretary of State)


I don't see it but please find somebody for us... we all know LBJ was the master and if you hear those tapes they play on NPR its hard to argue he was the one that understood US politics and government the best... but that does not mean he had the most qualifications.. he was more of a natural talent (with incredible experience in the House)...


Like all debates it comes down to defining your terms...but it is not so easy to dismiss Hilary's experience...and i think it is fairly easy to make the case she was the most qualified.. she had experience working in the executive at the top level (Secretary of State) and in congress at the top level.. that doesn't even include 8 years in the White House as first lady... many years in the Arkansas governor's hovel or her time as I think a staffer on some watergate congressional staff...
« Last Edit: June 13, 2017, 04:59:49 pm by hutch »

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14043
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #4235 on: June 13, 2017, 05:02:10 pm »

First Lady is not a qualification? It doesn't give you experience knowing what goes on in the White House where -you know -the President works?

Apparently, there was a quite a bit going on in the White House she wasn't aware of.

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 15617
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #4236 on: June 13, 2017, 05:05:19 pm »

First Lady is not a qualification? It doesn't give you experience knowing what goes on in the White House where -you know -the President works?

Apparently, there was a quite a bit going on in the White House she wasn't aware of.

ah the sexist jokes.. .bring it on.. ignore her year's as First Lady if you wish.. she was involved in policy at different points you know..

First Lady of the United States
When Bill Clinton took office as President in January 1993, Hillary Rodham Clinton became the First Lady, and her press secretary reiterated that she would be using that form of her name.[c] She was the first inaugural First Lady to have earned a postgraduate degree and to have her own professional career up to the time of entering the White House.[142] She was also the first to have an office in the West Wing of the White House in addition to the usual first lady offices in the East Wing.[59][143] She was part of the innermost circle vetting appointments to the new administration and her choices filled at least eleven top-level positions and dozens more lower-level ones.[144] After Eleanor Roosevelt, Clinton was regarded as the most openly empowered presidential wife in American history.[145][146]
Some critics called it inappropriate for the first lady to play a central role in matters of public policy. Supporters pointed out that Clinton's role in policy was no different from that of other White House advisors and that voters had been well aware that she would play an active role in her husband's presidency.[147] Bill Clinton's campaign promise of "two for the price of one" led opponents to refer derisively to the Clintons as "co-presidents" or sometimes use the Arkansas label "Billary".[99][148][149] The pressures of conflicting ideas about the role of a first lady were enough to send Hillary Clinton into "imaginary discussions"[clarification needed] with the also-politically-active Eleanor Roosevelt.[f] From the time she came to Washington, Hillary also found refuge in a prayer group of the Fellowship that featured many wives of conservative Washington figures.[153][154] Triggered in part by the death of her father in April 1993, she publicly sought to find a synthesis of Methodist teachings, liberal religious political philosophy, and Tikkun editor Michael Lerner's "politics of meaning" to overcome what she saw as America's "sleeping sickness of the soul"; that would lead to a willingness "to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the twentieth century, moving into a new millennium."[155][156]
Health care and other policy initiatives
See also: Clinton health care plan of 1993

Clinton at a presentation on her health care plan in September 1993
In January 1993, President Clinton named Hillary to chair a Task Force on National Health Care Reform, hoping to replicate the success she had in leading the effort for Arkansas education reform.[157] Unconvinced regarding the merits of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), she privately urged that passage of health care reform be given higher priority.[158][159] The recommendation of the task force became known as the Clinton health care plan, a comprehensive proposal that would require employers to provide health coverage to their employees through individual health maintenance organizations. Its opponents quickly derided the plan as "Hillarycare", and it faced opposition from even some Democrats in Congress.[160] Some protesters against the proposed plan became vitriolic, and during a July 1994 bus tour to rally support for the plan, Clinton wore a bulletproof vest at times.[160]
Failing to gather enough support for a floor vote in either the House or the Senate (although Democrats controlled both chambers), the proposal was abandoned in September 1994.[161] Clinton later acknowledged in her memoir that her political inexperience partly contributed to the defeat, but cited many other factors. The First Lady's approval ratings, which had generally been in the high-50s percent range during her first year, fell to 44 percent in April 1994 and 35 percent by September 1994.[162]
Republicans made the Clinton health care plan a major campaign issue of the 1994 midterm elections.[163] Republicans saw a net gain of fifty-three seats in the House election and seven in the Senate election, winning control of both; many analysts and pollsters found the plan to be a major factor in the Democrats' defeat, especially among independent voters.[164] The White House subsequently sought to downplay Clinton's role in shaping policy.[165] Opponents of universal health care would continue to use "Hillarycare" as a pejorative label for similar plans by others.[166]
Clinton reads a book to an African-American grade-schooler in Maryland during Read Across America Day in 1998
Clinton reads to a Maryland child during Read Across America Day, 1998
Along with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, Clinton was a force behind the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal bill that gave state support to children whose parents could not provide them health coverage, and conducted outreach efforts on behalf of enrolling children in the program once it became law.[167] She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood diseases and encouraged older women to get a mammogram for breast cancer screening, with coverage provided by Medicare.[168] She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.[59] The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome.[59]
Enactment of welfare reform was a major goal of Bill Clinton's presidency, but when the first two bills on the issue came from a Republican-controlled Congress that lacked protections for people coming off welfare, Hillary urged him to veto the bills, which he did.[169][170] A third version came up during his 1996 general election campaign that restored some of the protections but cut the scope of benefits in other areas; critics, including her past mentor Edelman, urged her to get the president to veto it again.[169] But she decided to support the bill, which became the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, as the best political compromise available.[169][170] This caused a rift with Edelman that Hillary later called "sad and painful".[170]
Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.[59] In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as first lady.[59][171] In 1999, she was instrumental in the passage of the Foster Care Independence Act, which doubled federal monies for teenagers aging out of foster care.[171] As first lady, Clinton was the host for various White House conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997),[172] on Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997),[173] and on Children and Adolescents (2000).[174] She also hosted the first-ever White House Conference on Teenagers (2000)[175] and the first-ever White House Conference on Philanthropy (1999).[176]
Clinton traveled to 79 countries during this time,[177] breaking the mark for most-traveled first lady held by Pat Nixon.[178] She did not hold a security clearance or attend National Security Council meetings, but played a role in U.S. diplomacy attaining its objectives.[179] A March 1995 five-nation trip to South Asia, on behest of the U.S. State Department and without her husband, sought to improve relations with India and Pakistan.[180] Clinton was troubled by the plight of women she encountered, but found a warm response from the people of the countries she visited and gained a better relationship with the American press corps.[181] The trip was a transformative experience for her and presaged her eventual career in diplomacy.[182]
Clinton speaking at a podium with several onlookers. She is delivering her "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights" speech in Beijing during September 1995.
Clinton delivering her "human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights" speech in Beijing in September 1995
In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in the People's Republic of China itself,[183] declaring that "it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights".[183] Delegates from over 180 countries heard her say: "If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, let it be that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights, once and for all."[184] In doing so, she resisted both internal administration and Chinese pressure to soften her remarks.[177][184] The speech became a key moment in the empowerment of women and years later women around the world would recite Clinton's key phrases.[185] She was one of the most prominent international figures during the late 1990s to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Taliban.[186][187] She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the U.S. to encourage the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.[188] It and Clinton's own visits encouraged women to make themselves heard in the Northern Ireland peace process.[189]

gavroche

  • Member
  • Posts: 247
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #4237 on: June 13, 2017, 05:05:43 pm »

at the time, with the unbelievable things he said, I would have recommend reminding voters how insane your opponent is

Obviously that was a major flaw...overestimating the intelligence of the voting population
not coming at them with gut and emotion kind of stuff so that they could put on a bumper sticker and be aligned with

My bigger point on Clinton is that there was no enthusiasm for her.  I readily admit that I thought it was enough for her to win, but I was really nervous, I thought Hillary was going to win the election. More importantly though, as people get more hardened into political parties elections become more and more about turn out.  That's why I think that the move of the democratic Party to the left has real legs.  It energizes the base and there is more to gain by getting the base out than there is by trying to pander to the center or moderate Republicans who aren't going to vote for a Dem anyway. 



Sanders wing of the democratic party just sounds weird as he NEVER supported anyone in the democratic party
...could be an uprising if democrats actually vote in the primaries



Would it sound less weird if I called it the Ellison, Grijalva, Waters wing of the Democratic Party?  Raskin fits in there as well.  There are a bunch of House members who are as progressive, or maybe more, than Sanders is (though obviously with less profile).  I still think that Ellison losing just shows how afraid Dems are of Muslim backlash. 

gavroche

  • Member
  • Posts: 247
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #4238 on: June 13, 2017, 05:08:26 pm »
Sorry, but First Lady is not a real qualification.

She was certainly way more qualified and experienced than the dolt that won, but this oft-repeated line of "most qualified candidate in history" is specious, at best.

First Lady is not a qualification? It doesn't give you experience knowing what goes on in the White House where -you know -the President works? Right-o she learned nothing being in the White House during her husband's presidency.. . Not to mention she was involved in the White House..she wasn't no Tammy Wynnette Stand by my man first lady....oh wait.   ;D

But what i said was most qualified meaning having the experience to know and do the job.... if you disagree the burden is on you to find somebody else you believe was more qualified...  lets go down the list... W? umm no. sorry... Bill? umm. no sorry... Bush Sr (a very good candidate.. hold on to that one).. Reagan? No.. actually being limited to political state experience does not trump being a US Senator and Secretary of State... Carter? No way..Ford? Nixon? LBJ? A good candidate but his experience while tremendous was limited to the House...Hillary had experience in the Senate and as SoS...JFK? Ike? Truman? FDR (Subsecretary of the Navy and Gov of NY.. ok not too bad.. but Governor for one term.. and subsecretary of the navy ain't Secretary of State)


I don't see it but please find somebody for us... we all know LBJ was the master and if you hear those tapes they play on NPR its hard to argue he was the one that understood US politics and government the best... but that does not mean he had the most qualifications.. he was more of a natural talent (with incredible experience in the House)...


Like all debates it comes down to defining your terms...but it is not so easy to dismiss Hilary's experience...and i think it is fairly easy to make the case she was the most qualified.. she had experience working in the executive at the top level (Secretary of State) and in congress at the top level.. that doesn't even include 8 years in the White House as first lady... many years in the Arkansas governor's hovel or her time as I think a staffer on some watergate congressional staff...

I think the bigger deal is that none of these "qualifications" matter if you don't believe that the candidate is going to represent you and your interests.  She was never able to connect with people on that level. I have no question that Hillary lost in part because of sexism (just like she lost in part because of the electoral college) but I don't think that is just sexism.  That was an election that a woman could have won, she just didn't.   

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 15617
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #4239 on: June 13, 2017, 05:18:20 pm »
umm she did get 3 million more votes gavroche with all due respect..

moreover, Comey coming out twice in the last week had a lot to do with it or how do you explain the shift? there was a shift the last week.. which is why all of a sudden Hillary went to Michigan etc... the polls shifted and the result shifted accordingly on the final election day poll

I find you to be parroting the prog wing line of the democratic party...the base of the democratic party are not socialists... as far as not energizing people .. I was energized.. I don't know...Nate Silver feels she actually energized more democrats and had more support in the democratic base than Sanders...

my personal opinion is that she was done in by two factors: Sanders who hung on for months tearing her apart and giving Trump all his talking points and then lukewarmly supported her.. this was not a Hilary endorsement of Obama.. he was basically talking at college campuses..not very helpful... and Comey...


we obviously disagree.. was everybody excited by Hillary.. no of course not... but hey I remember my parents being excited by another progressive candidate when they were young.. his name was Mcgovern... sorta forgotten.. look up how well he did..

I thought she ran a great campaign... its always the case that if you lose people say you ran a shitty campaign but the shitty campaign was Donald Trump or do you not remember? Every day it was a clownshow..lets look at some measures of a campaign

1. debates
2. fundraising
3. misteps (i can think of two... that hurt.. early on the comment about mining in WV.. and the comment about deplorables.. for a long campaign not exactly terrible)
4. the convention

by all measures Hillary shredded Trump in these areas.. now maybe they don't matter...which brings us to the final point

Instead of saying Hillary made the mistakes how about saying the American people made the mistake? Or don't you believe it is the American people who are accountable.. there is an often quoted phrase: "People have the governments they deserve" (I paraphrase).. generally this quote has been very applicable to other countries.. like say Argentina (my family is from there)... but now I think it applies to us.. or how else do we explain it? I mean really

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 15617
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #4240 on: June 13, 2017, 05:22:52 pm »
It kind of reminds me of a nice kid being bullied.. they don't like you.. you suck! why can't you make them like you.. wack wack wack..yeah we know you're nice.. we know you work hard.. we know you're ready.. we know you're qualified..wack wack wack. why can't you just be more "likable"... and we know the world will be OK with you as president and with the other person its a roll of the dice.. hey lets go with the other person! we don't like you nice kid but just be yourself... we don't like you but be yourself!! wack wack wack..you're trying to hard to make us like you and we just don't... wack wack wack.. why can't you be yourself more...we don't like you..wack wack wack

is the problem the kid being bullied or the people wacking the kid?

There is no other way to put it: the American people made a historically poor choice which in any other democracy would have still resulted in Hillary winning..unfortunately in our fucked up system the candidate with 3 million more votes is the loser. Stop looking for reasons to blame Hillary or the democratic party. This one is on us as a people. We fucked up... and now we pay for it and wack wack wack her some more cause it sucks?


« Last Edit: June 13, 2017, 05:36:47 pm by hutch »

gavroche

  • Member
  • Posts: 247
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #4241 on: June 13, 2017, 06:06:33 pm »
I find you to be parroting the prog wing line of the democratic party...the base of the democratic party are not socialists... as far as not energizing people .. I was energized.. I don't know...Nate Silver feels she actually energized more democrats and had more support in the democratic base than Sanders...

So admittedly, I work in the progressive left (though outside the Democratic Party). I fundamentally believe that the Democrats would be better if they ran progressive candidates, supporting labor above capital and just in general changing their relationship .  I think that picking lefty wing populism over Wall Street dollars would be a good move for Dems in the short term and definitely in the long term. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/democratic-party-rich-thomas-edsall.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fthomas-b-edsall&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=collection   I also believe that Corbyn's success supports this. 


I thought she ran a great campaign...

I at least was completely uninspired by Hillary (as well as Obama 2).  Almost everyone I know in my orbit felt the same way. 

by all measures Hillary shredded Trump in these areas.. now maybe they don't matter...which brings us to the final point

This is why I'm arguing that those are not the measures that matter now.  That what matters now is enthusiasm, because the electorate has become so partisan. 

my personal opinion is that she was done in by two factors: Sanders who hung on for months tearing her apart

Sanders was far nicer to Clinton than any of the Republicans were to Trump (and than Hillary and the Dems were to him).  She was so fragile that you think that hurt her but you want to tell me she was a good candidate?  He didn't even go after the emails.  I actually think she would have been better served if he had gone after the emails and cleared it off the deck. 
« Last Edit: June 13, 2017, 07:47:17 pm by gavroche »

gavroche

  • Member
  • Posts: 247
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #4242 on: June 13, 2017, 06:10:13 pm »
This one is on us as a people. We fucked up... and now we pay for it and wack wack wack her some more cause it sucks?

No question I think the American people made the wrong choice.  Still, the job of the Democratic Party is to win elections.  The Democratic party needs to win elections in the future.  That means we can't just say that this one is "on the people" and not look for things that the Democrats can do better in the future. There is too much at stake for that.     

hutch

  • Member
  • Posts: 15617
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #4243 on: June 13, 2017, 07:31:24 pm »
This one is on us as a people. We fucked up... and now we pay for it and wack wack wack her some more cause it sucks?

That means we can't just say that this one is "on the people" and not look for things that the Democrats can do better in the future. There is too much at stake for that.   

of course we can.. why can't we? it is on the people.. that doesn't mean that we can't do better in the future... but i find the post election autopsy facile.... we have no way of knowing how a socialist like Bernie Sanders would have done...we can't assume because she lost that the problem was that she wasn't Bernie or progressive enough... I happen to think Donald trump is a very skilled politician and bully... . to think that he wouldn't have picked Bernie apart and emasculated like he did with Rubio, Cruz, Jeb, and Hillary etc etc seems to me to not be necessarily supported by the evidence...Bernie might have done better in the rust belt.. sure.. but he might have done worse in other states...

and basically every post-mortem i have seen departs from a false premise: that Hillary was a terrible candidate.. I don't think the evidence bears that out I'm sorry to say...every post-mortem departs from the same conventional "wisdom" that Trump was such a terrible candidate that hillary to lose to him must have been even worse..just hugely flawed..otherwise how could she lose to Trump? But Trump wasn't a terrible candidate.. he just ran a terrible campaign..they are not necessarily the same thing...But Jeb lost to him, Cruz..Rubio and you can go on down the list.. the point is that Trump while a complete ass-hat was contrary to conventional stupidity an appealing candidate.. what does that say about the American people? We can't escape that thorny issue.. and how do we deal with it? By becoming demagogical?

I can tell you that the democratic party needs to change its stance on immigration for example..but the progressive wing of the party is even LESS likely to do so than Hillary, Biden or the establishment... why are we spending so much energy standing up for illegal immigrants?? My parents are legal immigrants and most legal immigrants I know have no sympathy for illegal immigrants.. I could go on... we don't need to be demagogical but we do need to be a little bit more realistic...

the point is the emerging conventional wisdom on what the democratic party needs to do is flawed.. and yes I think if we want to win elections having the democratic party being presided by a Muslim is a little bit of a reach.. I'm sorry..what else should I conclude??? and yet it is the Bernie progs that were so into Ellison...heck for me Hillary even having Huma Abedin around her all the time was a mistake (and she did arguably end up costing her the election.. with her husband happening to be the little weiner).

I'm tired of hearing democrats beat down Hillary.. .I don't like it.. I did everything I could for her.. maybe if other democrats hadn't been so busy posting shit like "oh no we don't want to pick between the lesser of two evils" or "hey there are just the same".. HOW QUICKLY WE FORGET!! THIS IS WHAT BERNIE PEOPLE WERE SAYING OR DO YOU FORGET GAVROCHE??? Fuck man I remember on twitter bernie people comparing Hillary to Hitler.. BERNIE PEOPLE MY FRIEND NOT REPUBLICANS





« Last Edit: June 13, 2017, 07:33:00 pm by hutch »

Space Freely

  • Member
  • Posts: 3402
Re: random . . . randomness
« Reply #4244 on: June 13, 2017, 09:36:32 pm »
So is this the default political thread now? Woah, VA rednecks at the polls full force today, making the Republican primary surprisingly close.