Support NeoGAF

[Wafflecakes]

And you generalizing the far left with ridiculous stereotypes, as the alt-right generalizes the entire left, differentiates you from them? Come on now.

Oh please. It is impossible to talk about ANYTHING without some level of generalization. It is a fact of life.

Let us not live in an alternate universe where it wasn't Bernie supporters who were the aggressors in the escalation of tensions between branches of the Democratic party.

 

[Meowster]

I mean, or maybe America loves racism and rape

strange seeing so many people outright ignore this and pretend it isn't one of the major issues facing America (and one that has been around since its founding). People gladly chose to shoot themselves in the face, vote to potentially lose their healthcare, to vote for a racist man that loves to "grab them by the pussy."

 

[The Technomancer]

I guess the best answer is that liberals should start going all in on gutting all of our social safety nets because that's what most of the country has routinely voted in favor of!

The thing I and others have been trying to express for about seven months now is that what we think of as progressivism probably isn't broadly popular as a whole, at least not in the sense that they occupy people's top priority slots above things like abortion, taxation, etc. That doesn't mean we can't win with it (especially with a likely backlash wave coming up) that doesn't mean we should waver in our commitment to it, it just means that the strategy for how we win elections can't just be "run on a platform of all the things we like and that the people obviously also like because we are the movement of the people so therefore the things the people like are what we like"

 

[Resident_UA]

Is there an leftist version of Infowars? If not I nominate this poster as well as all Bernie Bros to start one.

If Hillary won we would have Trump TV and BerniebroWars.com yelling at sane people everyday. I think 4 years of Trump torture is worth it as long as everything returns to normalish in 2020

 

[Azzanadra]

People here know that I'm a pretty big Hillary critic and was big Bernie supporter,

but maybe I would be interested in reading this? Hillary comes off as very mechanical and inauthentic most of the time in public, but I would like to hear more about the actual person inside, and how that person felt about the election.

 

[mlclmtckr]

I mean, or maybe America loves racism and rapists

Trump got less votes than Mitt Romney did. And still beat Clinton.

I am so over this Democratic self-absolution. Yes, it is shocking and awful that so many people voted for Donald Trump. Yes, Clinton would obviously have been better for the country than Trump.

That doesn't mean that the Democrats don't have to try at least a little fucking bit to figure out what it was about 2016 that made them lose.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Let us not live in an alternate universe where it wasn't Bernie supporters who were the aggressors in the escalation of tensions between branches of the Democratic party.

And are still causing tension. The people who voted for Hillary ultimately accepted her defeat, they think it was her responsibility for the loss but understand there were additional factors that played a role. They want to see Hillary step back from the head of the show and maintain a minor role (fundraising, supporting candidates, speaking out about progressive issues, etc.).

Then you have people who say GTFO and STFU, I never want to hear from you again.

Wonder what the difference is between the two camps and who is being aggressive and causing tension in the party?

 

[michaelius]

No it doesn't. She mentions some reasons right there.

But hey, keep pretending that Hillary's loss was 100% on her with no other influences that were out of her control.

Every person in the country saw that Access Hollywood video and nearly half of voters decided it was okay.

Campaigning more in a couple extra states was not going to change that.

So what positive message her campaign had? Did she lay out any program than she is going to follow post elections ? Or was it choose me because I'm not Trump ?

 

[The Technomancer]

So what positive message her campaign had? Did she lay out any program than she is going to follow post elections ? Or was it choose me because I'm not Trump ?

She laid out ideas for the future of America at plenty of rallies. The news media preferred to cover Trumps empty podium

That her campaign had messaging issues is undeniable. But it is also impossible to ignore the complicity of the media in prioritizing Trump over her

 

[pigeon]

That doesn't mean that the Democrats don't have to try at least a little fucking bit to figure out what it was about 2016 that made them lose.

Okay

White supremacy

That was a good talk

 

[TurnipFritters]

So what positive message her campaign had? Did she lay out any program than she is going to follow post elections ? Or was it choose me because I'm not Trump ?

Raising the minimum wage, universal pre-K, free college, tighter environmental restrictions (including, specifically, combating environment racism).

 

[Audioboxer]

strange seeing so many people outright ignore this and pretend it isn't one of the major issues facing America (and one that has been around since its founding). People gladly chose to shoot themselves in the face, vote to potentially lose their healthcare, to vote for a racist man that loves to "grab them by the pussy."

I don't think anyone outright ignores it. Many just understand politics is a game of fine margins. Many voters from the day they can vote till the day they will die will vote one way and that's it. Whether their parents told them that's the way the family votes or they decided fully themselves and never change.

Elections aren't won 85% to 15%. It's routinely a game of 5~15%. Within that the biggest casualty is often stay at home voters who decide to join in once, then never again, or sporadically (Obama picked up voters who apparently decided to stay at home this time). You're not trying to convince 80% of your country to vote your way, but often a very small majority that end up causing elections to tip one way or the other. As people need to stop pretending the pendulum doesn't swing. Dems win sometimes, Republicans win other times. It's been the same in the UK with Labour/Conservatives, although right now we are in a rut where the Conservatives keep winning. It seems clear you guys don't want a 2nd Republicans term, so yeah, work needs to be done and wisely. Part of which is not framing your arguments like you're literally trying to convince 50% of America and all those damn racists and fundamentalist Christians to also go Dem. They aren't going Dem. They'll never go Dem. It doesn't matter who the Republicans leader is for them it's a tick in that box regardless. It's like supporting a football (soccer) team, you don't stop for a while because your manager is shit, you keep supporting. That's how it is for some. It didn't matter fuck all Trump was the leader, it's about supporting Republicans till they die, end of. Clinton or other commentators going on about how terrible Trump is and how can anyone vote for him are missing the point with these set in stone voters, and Trump, due to how terrible a candidate he was, proved that. Hardline Republicans vote Republican. Even if you wheel out a trash campaign leader.

The youth is ALWAYS a good area for a left leaning party to focus on. There's one objective for the Dems for 2020. Corbyn was a leader that resonated well with the youth, and while it wasn't quite enough there in our snap election, they did do damage to May and take her majority win away. Out of everyone who can be convinced to either get off their asses and go out and vote, or MAYBE change sides, it's the youth. Clinton was pretty mediocre with the youth from what I seen. They still went out and supported her over Trump by a fair margin but I think someone else can engage them better than her.

 

[Yoshimitsu126]

Definitely want to read her insight in why she lost.

It would be highly ironic if the people who didn't vote for Hilary are the ones who are angry with her and the current white house administration.

 

[Snarky(HEART)]

So why is it bad to downplay Hilary's mistakes but it's totally okay to outright ignore all the racism, sexism, election interference and stupidity?

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

So what positive message her campaign had? Did she lay out any program than she is going to follow post elections ? Or was it choose me because I'm not Trump ?

If only there was some kind of portfolio of policy ideas or platform that we could look up. Shame that it doesn't exist.

 

[Azzanadra]

Also, this thread right now:

 

[ZeoVGM]

So what positive message her campaign had? Did she lay out any program than she is going to follow post elections ? Or was it choose me because I'm not Trump ?

Yes, she did.

 

[Resident_UA]

I like how people are replying to michaelius as if he gives a shit what policies Hillary had.

 

[Oemenia]

And are still causing tension. The people who voted for Hillary ultimately accepted her defeat, they think it was her responsibility for the loss but understand there were additional factors that played a role. They want to see Hillary step back from the head of the show and maintain a minor role (fundraising, supporting candidates, speaking out about progressive issues, etc.).

Then you have people who say GTFO and STFU, I never want to hear from you again.

Wonder what the difference is between the two camps and who is being aggressive and causing tension in the party?

Let's give her chance.

Third time may finally when she learns how to be a good loser.

 

[Father_Brain]

Trump got less votes than Mitt Romney did. And still beat Clinton.

I am so over this Democratic self-absolution. Yes, it is shocking and awful that so many people voted for Donald Trump. Yes, Clinton would obviously have been better for the country than Trump.

That doesn't mean that the Democrats don't have to try at least a little fucking bit to figure out what it was about 2016 that made them lose.

For many liberals and Democrats, it's far more important to reassure themselves of their own moral and intellectual superiority and shield their idols from criticism than it is to win elections, let alone to actually advance progressive policy.

 

[El_Tiguere]

Is there an leftist version of Infowars? If not I nominate this poster as well as all Bernie Bros to start one.

I'll gladly wear the tinfoil hat that Clinton supporters want to hand out whenever their queen gets attacked (about the verifiable corruption of the Clintons over the decades).

The level of blissful ignorance and blind loyalty to Clinton by many is only matched by current Trump supporters. You can connect all the simple dots to them, but they will just call it FAKE NEWS!! (funny to think the Clinton campaign coined the term FAKE NEWS in regards to her emails).

 

[pigeon]

That doesn't mean that the Democrats don't have to try at least a little fucking bit to figure out what it was about 2016 that made them lose.

Okay, I will try a little less flippantly.

I do actually think Hillary was a bad candidate, and that it was dumb for her to continue running after the FBI investigation blew up. I do think there was an incentive problem in that it was hard to identify a second candidate after Hillary and that made it hard to suggest she should be replaced. Dems should take the lesson that even if they all generally think a specific candidate would be the best choice, they need to find a better way to put forward multiple candidates just in case one dies or whatever.

I also think that there was no moral reason to vote for Donald Trump and that every person who did so condoned and endorsed white supremacy and sexual assault. I think it's an error to constantly elide that moral crime. He should have gotten about zero votes, if this were a country populated by decent people. It is not that easy for me to quickly pass over the enormity of the moral failing America and the Republican Party demonstrated.

 

[Clerical Error]

Trump got less votes than Mitt Romney did. And still beat Clinton.

Just for the sake of pedantic accuracy, this is false. Romney received a larger proportion of the vote than Trump (47.2% to Trump's 46.1%) but Trump beat him in total votes by about 2 million votes.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

Let's give her chance.

Third time may finally when she learns how to be a good loser.

Are you trying to say she should run again or I think she should? Cause we can clear that up, no one is asking for that here.

 

[Oemenia]

I like how people are replying to michaelius as if he gives a shit what policies Hillary had.

I'm sure she read them at least once.

Are you trying to say she should run again or I think she should? Cause we can clear that up, no one is asking for that here.

Are you sure, because people might finally get how amazing she is.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

I'm sure she read them at least once.
Are you sure, because people might finally get how amazing she is.

Oh, so you're just trolling, cool.

 

[TurnipFritters]

Are you sure, because people might finally get how amazing she is.

I think people already know since she won the popular vote in the last three elections she ran in.

 

[mlclmtckr]

Okay

White supremacy

That was a good talk

So the dude that got fewer votes than Mitt Romney (who lost to a black dude, iirc) beat a rich white lady named Hillary Clinton because of white supremacy. Okay.

I know taking this kind of stance means that you get to always be righteous and never question your own opinions or stray from the warm embrace of the very woke and electorally viable Democratic Party mainstream consensus but holy shit.

You are sitting there congratulating yourself about how right you were and how Hillary cannot fail, she can only be failed, while there is actual work to be done. You're actually harming the cause you claim to support when you post this kind of thing.

Again, Obama beat a dude who got more votes than Donald Trump. There isn't anything in the American electorate now that wasn't there in 08 or 12.

I want actual progressive policy. I don't follow politics so that I can tut-tut about the inexorable racist tide and not even bother trying to win elections because I'm too morally pure to ever need to examine my views.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Yikes. I can say with reasonable confidence the one thing America does not need is a "dramatic" Hollywood retelling of the 2016 election loss on the big screens. I mean, is the goal to try and make the Democrat party appear as bad as possible? That's one way you can try and absolutely ignite the public image of the party, and basically, serve up the opposition so much opportunity for easy mockery. I think it's safe to say the Democrat party would need to fire all of its media/public relations staff if they ever thought it was a good idea to greenlight a movie about a pretty damaging loss. You won't get sympathy through a sob-story told via a trendy director and some swish actors. A book people can just about stomach, a movie? Don't log on to the internet for a few years, and don't watch any news channels/political shows on TV. My British brain can only imagine a movie being made about how Corbyn lost to May (even although it was kind of a win)... It's just, no. Such easy pickings for your opposition to laugh, mock and satirise your grovelling into oblivion.

What...

She's writing a book as a private citizens...

Now you're speculating about the Democrats greenlighting a movie?

What?

 

[Snarky(HEART)]

What...

She's writing a book as a private citizens...

Now you're speculating about the Democrats greenlighting a movie?

What?

Yeah I notice the Hillary haters really are worried she's gonna run again or she wants to control everything or she has some grand plan.

 

[El_Tiguere]

Okay, I will try a little less flippantly.

I do actually think Hillary was a bad candidate, and that it was dumb for her to continue running after the FBI investigation blew up. I do think there was an incentive problem in that it was hard to identify a second candidate after Hillary and that made it hard to suggest she should be replaced. Dems should take the lesson that even if they all generally think a specific candidate would be the best choice, they need to find a better way to put forward multiple candidates just in case one dies or whatever.

You need to be more specific here. Democrats could not find a PRO CORPORATE lapdog (that would appease the donors) of a candidate to replace Hillary. What they DID do is hinder the chances of an anti-corporate candidate, who also happens to be the most well-liked politician in America today. The Democrats apparently could not afford to endorse a candidate promising to fight the influence of money in politics and the corruption in DC. I am talking about how the DNC colluded to deny Sanders a fair shot at the candidacy.

 

[Gruco]

So what positive message her campaign had? Did she lay out any program than she is going to follow post elections ? Or was it choose me because I'm not Trump ?

Trump got less votes than Mitt Romney did. And still beat Clinton.

Always amazes me how much of the "Hillary ruined everything" narrative is driven by ignorance (former) and lies (latter).

 

[mlclmtckr]

Just for the sake of pedantic accuracy, this is false. Romney received a larger proportion of the vote than Trump (47.2% to Trump's 46.1%) but Trump beat him in total votes by about 2 million votes.

Sorry this is right and I stand corrected. More of the vote share, not raw votes. My bad.

 

[Audioboxer]

What...

She's writing a book as a private citizens...

Now you're speculating about the Democrats greenlighting a movie?

What?

I replied to that poster about the potential for a movie? Why aren't you quoting the poster I did asking them why they brought up a movie?

Hillary Clinton cannot greenlight and direct a movie on her own, so yes, if it were to happen many cogs may need to give permission for filming/acting and so on. As I said though, if you're asking why I spoke about a movie ask the poster I quoted who was the one who suggested an idea of one.

 

[Snarky(HEART)]

Always amazes me how much of the "Hillary ruined everything" narrative is driven by ignorance (former) and lies (latter).

Doesn't count, apparently

 

[El_Tiguere]

I think people already know since she won the popular vote in the last three elections she ran in.

You don't get a special cookie for winning CA and NY by more than 4 million votes as a Democrat.

 

[mlclmtckr]

Okay, I will try a little less flippantly.

I do actually think Hillary was a bad candidate, and that it was dumb for her to continue running after the FBI investigation blew up. I do think there was an incentive problem in that it was hard to identify a second candidate after Hillary and that made it hard to suggest she should be replaced. Dems should take the lesson that even if they all generally think a specific candidate would be the best choice, they need to find a better way to put forward multiple candidates just in case one dies or whatever.

I also think that there was no moral reason to vote for Donald Trump and that every person who did so condoned and endorsed white supremacy and sexual assault. I think it's an error to constantly elide that moral crime. He should have gotten about zero votes, if this were a country populated by decent people. It is not that easy for me to quickly pass over the enormity of the moral failing America and the Republican Party demonstrated.

I agree with everything you say here.

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

I'll gladly wear the tinfoil hat that Clinton supporters want to hand out whenever their queen gets attacked (about the verifiable corruption of the Clintons over the decades).

The level of blissful ignorance and blind loyalty to Clinton by many is only matched by current Trump supporters. You can connect all the simple dots to them, but they will just call it FAKE NEWS!! (funny to think the Clinton campaign coined the term FAKE NEWS in regards to her emails).

So provide the fucking receipts to back up your drivel.

You roll in here with this BS crap, say queen, blind loyalty, etc.

Where do you see that? Go ahead, I'll wait.

You need to be more specific here. Democrats could not find a PRO CORPORATE lapdog (that would appease the donors) of a candidate to replace Hillary. What they DID do is hinder the chances of an anti-corporate candidate, who also happens to be the most well-liked politician in America today. The Democrats apparently could not afford to endorse a candidate promising to fight the influence of money in politics and the corruption in DC. I am talking about how the DNC colluded to deny Sanders a fair shot at the candidacy.

Receipts?

 

[SolidSnakex]

So why is it bad to downplay Hilary's mistakes but it's totally okay to outright ignore all the racism, sexism, election interference and stupidity?

I don't think anyone is ignoring all those other factors. But the reality is that her own campaign is one thing she can control. Those other elements are out of her hands. I think if people felt she did everything she could to win the election but ultimately still lost, then they would be more ready to accept those other factors as playing a bigger role in her defeat. But there's simply no way she gave it her all. We know this by the number of campaign stops Trump did vs. what she did. We know it by how she was off fundraising with rich people while Trump was campaigning to voters.

I'm reminded of an article that went around during the election that talked about how people within Hillary's campaign were sure she could coast into winning the election while laying low because of all the scandals surrounding Trump and his campaign. Trump ended up running a campaign like someone who wanted to win while Hillary ran hers like someone who expected to win. In other words, one doing everything they could do to win while the other did the bare minimum. And people simply aren't going to forget that. She was known for acknowledging how bad Trump could be for the country and that still apparently wasn't enough motivation for her to actually do more.

 

[Oemenia]

So provide the fucking receipts to back up your drivel.

You roll in here with this BS crap, say queen, blind loyalty, etc.

Where do you see that? Go ahead, I'll wait.



Receipts?

Go to any Bernie thread on GAF and then consider why GAF was a top 5 referrer to her website.

 

[El_Tiguere]

Receipts?

What specifically do you want receipts for? anyone living in our present reality by now should recognize that the DNC/HRC camp colluded against Bernie. They baked their shit cake by the DNC convention, and had to eat their defeat by Nov 8.

 

[pigeon]

You need to be more specific here. Democrats could not find a PRO CORPORATE lapdog (that would appease the donors) of a candidate to replace Hillary. What they DID do is hinder the chances of an anti-corporate candidate, who also happens to be the most well-liked politician in America today. The Democrats apparently could not afford to endorse a candidate promising to fight the influence of money in politics and the corruption in DC. I am talking about how the DNC colluded to deny Sanders a fair shot at the candidacy.

Sorry, I couldn't hear you over all the chemtrails.

 

[kirblar]

Go to any Bernie thread on GAF and then consider why GAF was a top 5 referrer to her website.

It was also a top 5 referrer to his!

 

[thiscoldblack]

The lengths some people here like to defend Hillary so much is quite embarrassing, honestly. She's probably enjoying her day drinking tea in her Chappaqua NY home, not giving a damn if you care or not.

 

[El_Tiguere]

Sorry, I couldn't hear you over all the chemtrails.

It's OK... Trump supporters use your same tactic when one brings up facts about their queen.

 

[TurnipFritters]

You don't get a special cookie for winning CA and NY by more than 4 million votes as a Democrat.

This does not actually contradict or refute my statement.

 

[Resident_UA]

What specifically do you want receipts for? anyone living in our present reality by now should recognize that the DNC/HRC camp colluded against Bernie. They baked their shit cake by the DNC convention, and had to eat their defeat by Nov 8.

WOW! Really? In a year and a half Bernie Bros still didn't bother to read up on what the fuck primary is? It a private event run a by a group of people where they pick who they think represents them the best. It's not democracy in any shape. Bernie as an outsider should thank them for taking him is (ironically the same way as Trump) LOL

 

[Zyae]

will there be a chapter on why she didnt campaign in wisconsin or appeal to blue collar voters like her Husband argued she should?

 

[Arrogant Bastard]

The fucking over happened during the extremely coordinated effort between the Hillary campaign, Hillary lackeys in the media, the DNC, and the rest of the corporate oligarchs placating the rise of Bernie Sanders every step of the way. The fucking over had happened by the DNC convention, and the BS spectacle of forced "unity" left a sour taste in every progressive's mouth which has lasted to this day.

I'm glad that the house is slowly crumbling around Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and I hope ultimate the Clintons are prosecuted for all their avarice and crimes against humanity over the many decades of their corrupt dynasty.

Haha Hillary was such a mess that they had NO CHOICE but to cover all her scandals, including her health crumbling. The email issue was a self-inflicted wound. Should I remind you that those lackeys in the media would pick and choose what to say about the emails (minimizing the bad ones, diverting attention), and CNN even had the gall to say that anyone reading the emails are doing something illegal, and that they should listen only to CNN for interpretation of the emails.

As I followed the election and the media every day, the magnitude of how much Hillary was sheltered/protected/aided (and Bernie was placated or openly derided) by the press is astounding.


That democrats turn a blind eye to the Clintons robbing Haiti blind after the earthquake is embarrassing.

You need to be more specific here. Democrats could not find a PRO CORPORATE lapdog (that would appease the donors) of a candidate to replace Hillary. What they DID do is hinder the chances of an anti-corporate candidate, who also happens to be the most well-liked politician in America today. The Democrats apparently could not afford to endorse a candidate promising to fight the influence of money in politics and the corruption in DC. I am talking about how the DNC colluded to deny Sanders a fair shot at the candidacy.

You can start there.

The lengths some people here like to defend Hillary so much is quite embarrassing, honestly. She's probably enjoying her day drinking tea in her Chappaqua NY home, not giving a damn if you care or not.

Well when people stop acting like children with this GTFO, STFU, go to mars shit, etc. people will stop defending her. I also don't even think defending her is the right word, just don't get the excessive vitriol and rage her name causes.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Trump got less votes than Mitt Romney did. And still beat Clinton.

I am so over this Democratic self-absolution. Yes, it is shocking and awful that so many people voted for Donald Trump. Yes, Clinton would obviously have been better for the country than Trump.

That doesn't mean that the Democrats don't have to try at least a little fucking bit to figure out what it was about 2016 that made them lose.

Trump got about 2 million more votes than Romney