Support NeoGAF

[Isaac Otherworld]

Cuomo isn't going to run lol

He'd never make it past the primary. Like, at all. No chance.

There is absolutely no way Cuomo doesn't run in 2020. If Clinton had decided against running in 2016 Cuomo would have jumped into the race this time. The guy has been eyeing a presidential run since he first became governor. Every public statement the guy has made post general election has been clear indicators he's planning on running of the "I'm not running...BUT" sort.

It's going to be him Cuomo or Kaine vs a Bernie style progressive in the 2020 Democratic Primary.

Pro-Tip: New York isn't as liberal as you think it is. It's more of an old-school Democrat state. Unless you actually believe someone can go out there and talk about the evils of Wall Street... and actually win Wall Street?

You definitely got me there. I'm not from New York. But the dependence on Wall Street and the Third Way Democrats have destroyed the party on every front except the extremely loyal democratic strongholds like California and New York. Regardless of whether a primary poses a threat to him, he's definitely concerned about the prospects. And he's savy enough to realize that the Bernie wing of the party is the future of the Democratic party. The democratic party doesn't need Wall Street, nor should it. Wall Street doesn't care about the Democratic party or middle and working class Americans. They just want the Democrats on their side so they get everything they want regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in office. If you aren't from New York, you're probably more receptive to the absolute seething hatred the majority of Americans have for Wall Street and bankers after the 2008 financial crash.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

He's HATED all over the state in the rural areas because of his gun laws. His campaign would be over before New York even gets to vote (the only state he'd have a chance at winning).

 

[shinra-bansho]

Lmao. No one is pushing any of those people.
Like if you want to rail against a NY contender at least do so against a plausible one like Gillibrand. Assuming the repertoire of establishment!!! Rararabble go to names extends that far.

 

[gaugebozo]

‘I will give you everything.’ Here are 282 of Donald Trump’s campaign promises.

I'd forgotten how hilarious and/or ignorant some of these were... For instance,



Also from the (blessed? ) WaPo:

The mainstream media had the Worst Week in Washington



Late edit:

I love the idea of getting Trump on not making any of his (impossible) campaign promises, but I think this is something that's going to play out very disappointingly. People who voted for Trump didn't do it expecting results. When I brought up that none of the stuff he was promising could happen before the election, multiple people I've talked to said they didn't care. One said she(!) likes that he's just telling her what she wants to hear. He talks to them. They don't listen to anyone else, including Fox News. He's a wrench thrown in the system not to get something out, but to mess with the system.

Any attempt to get him on policies is going to be pushed off with something like, "ah, they never do what they promise," because it was never about policies anyway.

 

[Wilsongt]

I love the idea of getting Trump on not making any of his (impossible) campaign promises, but I think this is something that's going to play out very disappointingly. People who voted for Trump didn't do it expecting results. When I brought up that none of the stuff he was promising could happen before the election, multiple people I've talked to said they didn't care. One said she(!) likes that he's just telling her what she wants to hear. He talks to them. They don't listen to anyone else, including Fox News. He's a wrench thrown in the system not to get something out, but to mess with the system.

Any attempt to get him on policies is going to be pushed off with something like, "ah, they never do what they promise," because it was never about policies anyway.

How do you combat a problem like Trump when policies clearly don't matter (as much?). How do you mobilize Democrats?

 

[The Chosen One]

Joe said "obama was given a stable iraq"


Is joe applying for fox news?

Joe is unhinged this morning.

You can tell he's fallen back in line with the Trump camp, so he can get access. He no longer criticizes Trump on air anymore beyond a passing remark.

 

[DragonSworne]

Joe is unhinged this morning.

You can tell he's fallen back in line with the Trump camp, so he can get access. He no longer criticizes Trump on air anymore beyond a passing remark.

Such integrity

 

[dramatis]

There is absolutely no way Cuomo doesn't run in 2020. If Clinton had decided against running in 2016 Cuomo would have jumped into the race this time. The guy has been eyeing a presidential run since he first became governor. Every public statement the guy has made post general election has been clear indicators he's planning on running of the "I'm not running...BUT" sort.

It's going to be him Cuomo or Kaine vs a Bernie style progressive in the 2020 Democratic Primary.

You definitely got me there. I'm not from New York. But the dependence on Wall Street and the Third Way Democrats have destroyed the party on every front except the extremely loyal democratic strongholds like California and New York. Regardless of whether a primary poses a threat to him, he's definitely concerned about the prospects. And he's savy enough to realize that the Bernie wing of the party is the future of the Democratic party. The democratic party doesn't need Wall Street, nor should it. Wall Street doesn't care about the Democratic party or middle and working class Americans. They just want the Democrats on their side so they get everything they want regardless of whether Republicans or Democrats are in office. If you aren't from New York, you're probably more receptive to the absolute seething hatred the majority of Americans have for Wall Street and bankers after the 2008 financial crash.

You definitely haven't read any history or even looked at a 1992 or a 1996 map. Third Way Democrats was the reason Clinton was able to win in a country that was growing increasingly conservative.

All of your walls of text read like a righteous college student with no idea of how politics works, the history of it, and you keep writing this fanfiction about what actually happened and what is actually happening.

If Sanders and 'his' ideas were really going to be the winner, explain Feingold's loss in Wisconsin with your all knowledgeable omniscience about the fickleness of the American electorate.

 

[gaugebozo]

How do you combat a problem like Trump when policies clearly don't matter (as much?). How do you mobilize Democrats?

I don't know a definite way. I think the best bet is to mobilize Democrats around a charismatic candidate who can speak to two of the largest factions in the party: progressives and civil rights voters. Hopefully these groups will be energized after 4 years of exactly the opposite of what they want.

 

[Pixieking]

How do you combat a problem like Trump when policies clearly don't matter (as much?). How do you mobilize Democrats?

I don't know. But let's remember that 65 million or so people chose Hillary, and that was at least partially based on policy.

Trump voters may not care if he delivers (though I think some will, just we don't know the proportion), but Dem/Hillary voters definitely will care - they'll care if he does (because overturning Roe v Wade or gay marriage is frightening), and they'll care if he doesn't (because Dems will see how bad opioid dependency is and continues to be).

So, I think, yeah, get a charismatic candidate, but don't forego policy talk altogether. Because it's not an either/or choice here, none of it.

And especially because if Trump fucks-up majorly and ends-up with a 9/11 on his hands, the swing to establishment candidates with experience will be sudden and dramatic.

 

[dramatis]

Vox has an article up about budget reconciliation. I suddenly got nostalgic about back when Grover Norquist was the worst. Now? He's invisible.

 

[Wilsongt]

Vox has an article up about budget reconciliation. I suddenly got nostalgic about back when Grover Norquist was the worst. Now? He's invisible.

Well, they're still not raising taxes... "Technically".

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Someone is going to have to raise taxes eventually, we can't just keep using the "CUTTING TAXES" stuff. There's a point where it's just not feasible as a country to continue to lower taxes.

And honestly, we probably hit that mark years ago...

 

[Wilsongt]

Trump's most trusted advisor.

In a Dec. 7, 2013 email obtained by the Washington Post, Jared Kushner expressed condolences to former Port Authority official David Wildstein, who had just resigned from his job as questions emerged about his role in orchestrating four days of gridlock on the George Washington Bridge.

“Just wanted you to know that I am thinking of you and wishing the best. For what it’s worth, I thought the move you pulled was kind of badass,” Kushner wrote Wildstein, according to the Post.

Also...
OMG AN EMAIL! KILL IT KILL IT

 

[Pixieking]

Someone is going to have to raise taxes eventually, we can't just keep using the "CUTTING TAXES" stuff. There's a point where it's just not feasible as a country to continue to lower taxes.

And honestly, we probably hit that mark years ago...

In an alternate universe, people have the Buffet Tax:

Preserve Social Security for decades to come by asking the wealthiest to contribute more. Social Security must continue to guarantee dignity in retirement for future generations. Hillary understands that there is no way to accomplish that goal without asking the highest-income Americans to pay more, including options to tax some of their income above the current Social Security cap and taxing some of their income not currently taken into account by the Social Security system.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Anyone pushing the "everyone is a liberal, but they don't know it" schtick requires explaining how Feingold lost and single payer got destroyed in CO, but Jason Kander outran the top of the ticket by miles.

The country is not Seattle.

 

[dramatis]

Well, they're still not raising taxes... "Technically".

I can't remember where I read it, but supposedly Norquist came up with that "no raising taxes" pledge when he was eleven years old.

Guy never grew up.

 

[Plinko]

Analysts are exactly right--the whole "illegals are voting!" garbage has nothing to do with the election and everything to do with upcoming voter suppression. Republicans want unlimited and neverending power in this country.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Voter suppression worked flawlessly in WI and NC, so there's no reason to think they won't try it all over the country.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

For the record, Third Way Democrats are *why* I am a Democrat. I may be more left now, but I wasn't in 1992.

 

[Wilsongt]

Voter suppression worked flawlessly in WI and NC, so there's no reason to think they won't try it all over the country.

Especially not as soon as the right gets that coveted 5th spot on the court. You're going to have a ton of lawsuits being brought to the SCOTUS.

A veritable conga line of conservative crap.

 

[Isaac Otherworld]

You definitely haven't read any history or even looked at a 1992 or a 1996 map. Third Way Democrats was the reason Clinton was able to win in a country that was growing increasingly conservative.

All of your walls of text read like a righteous college student with no idea of how politics works, the history of it, and you keep writing this fanfiction about what actually happened and what is actually happening.

If Sanders and 'his' ideas were really going to be the winner, explain Feingold's loss in Wisconsin with your all knowledgeable omniscience about the fickleness of the American electorate.

This a real question and if you respond to anything in my post at all I want it to be this. How marginalized do the democrats need to become on all electoral fronts for you to say "Okay. We need to shift the party into a more populist direction. We need to hand the reins of the party over to the grass roots."

I'm aware that in 1992 and 1996, the Third Way Democrats achieved good short term electoral gains. The key words being "short term". Third Way Democrats took complete control of the party. And now the democratic party has nothing left electorally. We just ran the ultimate Third Way Democrat. We just went through a presidential election where one candidate got all the donor money. That strategy failed.

At what point would you acknowledge that the democratic party has immense fundamental problems with it's candidates, it's platforms and messaging? When we've lost 99/99 legislatures? When we've lost 50/50 governors? It wasn't just Clinton losing the presidency. If that was the case I'd probably say "Lick our wounds and try again next time." The entire party has been obliterated electorally. It's happened gradually over a generation. The only reason we didn't realize it sooner was because Barack Obama managed to win the presidency by virtue of being a once in a lifetime politician.

We are in more polarized times than ever before. But there was/is real potential for the electorate to become more progressive than ever before. The American public's trust and faith in business, corporations, the political parties, and the elites is at all time lows. It collapsed after the 2008 crash and has only continued to sink lower and lower. It's not the 1990's anymore. People have absolutely no faith in business and corporate entities to act in a way that's beneficial to the public at large. A presidential candidate needs to run against the failed elites in order to win the presidency. Trump did that from the right. That's why he won.

Feingold lost for a number of reasons. While money in politics is less relevant on the presidential level because of all the free media, it is still extremely toxic and damaging on the state and local levels where there is so much less attention and media. The same goes for Colorado's Healthcare initiative. At the same time, Hillary was an unpopular candidate in Wisconsin, and a bad candidate at the top of the ticket almost always hurts down ticket members of the party especially when Trump ultimately won the state. At the same time, voter suppression played a role in Clinton's ultimate defeat. It played a role in Feingold and other Democrat's defeat.

Analysts are exactly right--the whole "illegals are voting!" garbage has nothing to do with the election and everything to do with upcoming voter suppression. Republicans want unlimited and neverending power in this country.

I think this is the single biggest threat of a united Trump and Republican government. If there is a battle we need to be 100% mobilized to fight, it's this one.

 

[royalan]

Analysts are exactly right--the whole "illegals are voting!" garbage has nothing to do with the election and everything to do with upcoming voter suppression. Republicans want unlimited and neverending power in this country.

And they're trying to test if true, investigative journalism among the big networks is truly dead, because such a thing would be easy to disprove if anyone cared to.

But no. This will likely get a few days play in the news, then Trump will get in a Twitter war with Katy Perry or something and every will switch because "OMG, don't you understand!? The media HAS to cover this!"

 

[kess]

Clinton didn't really run on much of a Third Way platform, and arguably, she lost on social issues.

 

[Totakeke]

I never claimed they were "just dumb" but painting out rather obvious tactics as elaborate and implicitly claiming they are sourced from Russia is ludicrous.

Rather than believe that Trump's every action has been dictated by Putin through decades of Russian tactics, it's quite simple to just say his actions for what they are. He manipulated people by pandering to demographics that are plentiful and have lots of unrest. He acted brashly and purposefully broke status quo to attract attention and convey his anti-establishment campaign. He took advantage of modern America's discontent at establishment figures and inaction red tape. The type of article I quoted is empty, inane thinkpieces that just regurgitate the same information with useless additions. Ascribing Trump/Bannon's tactics as a "'darkness' strategy" and tying its origin with Putin/Surkov, implying Trump's strategies were derived directly from Putin himself. Adding in more useless terms like "non-linear warfare".

The call-to-arms is probably the most laughable part. It's like a weekly update on impossible ways to "fix" the election.

Take the first call-to-arms for example: "Social media companies need to be held accountable for facilitating the spread of misinformation." They need to change.

-There is no action suggested on how to fix this at all, it's just an empty suggestion. Should the government step in? Will a mass boycott of Facebook fix this? Nothing is suggested and no action will reasonably take place.
-"They’ve since taken some small steps to rectify their errors, but for now, at least, it’s too little too late." The author acknowledges that Facebook is working toward the author's goal independently but... it's too late? Isn't the whole point to take action now in preparation for the next election and to change the current climate?

You're taking the opposite extreme stance in order to discredit a theory. No one is asking you to buy a theory wholesale. The world isn't binary.

 

[Blader]

This is only working cause he isn't prez yet. The second there is an actual fire and prez trump is playing with his Twitter, they will turn on him.

Nope. The media will only continue to keep rolling over for Trump. They did so when he wasn't a serious primary candidate; they did so when he was a serious candidate; they did so when he was the nominee; they're doing so now that he's the president-elect, and will keep doing so when he's the actual president.

Wait, is Trump referencing this infowars bullcrap?

Trump and his NatSec Advisor both read InfoWars, so probably. He takes anything he sees on the internet as gospel, and has more or less said as much (to Bill O'Reilly! of all people).

 

[Wilsongt]

The second biggest disappointment and bomb of the year releases tomorrow! o/

 

[dramatis]

This a real question and if you respond to anything in my post at all I want it to be this. How marginalized do the democrats need to become on all electoral fronts for you to say "Okay. We need to shift the party into a more populist direction. We need to hand the reins of the party over to the grass roots."

I'm aware that in 1992 and 1996, the Third Way Democrats achieved good short term electoral gains. The key words being "short term". Third Way Democrats took complete control of the party. And now the democratic party has nothing left electorally. We just ran the ultimate Third Way Democrat. We just went through a presidential election where one candidate got all the donor money. That strategy failed.

At what point would you acknowledge that the democratic party has immense fundamental problems with it's candidates, it's platforms and messaging? When we've lost 99/99 legislatures? When we've lost 50/50 governors? It wasn't just Clinton losing the presidency. If that was the case I'd probably say "Lick our wounds and try again next time." The entire party has been obliterated electorally. It's happened gradually over a generation. The only reason we didn't realize it sooner was because Barack Obama managed to win the presidency by virtue of being a once in a lifetime politician.

We are in polarized times than ever before. But there was/is real potential for the electorate to become more progressive than ever before. The American public's trust and faith in business, corporations, the political parties, and the elites is at all time lows. It collapsed after the 2008 crash and has only continued to sink lower and lower. It's not the 1990's anymore. People have absolutely no faith in business and corporate entities to act in a way that's beneficial to the public at large. A presidential candidate needs to run against the failed elites in order to win the presidency. Trump did that from the right. That's why he won.

Feingold lost for a number of reasons. While money in politics is less relevant on the presidential level because of all the free media, it is still extremely toxic and damaging on the state and local levels where there is so much less attention and media. The same goes for Colorado's Healthcare initiative. At the same time, Hillary was an unpopular candidate in Wisconsin, and a bad candidate at the top of the ticket almost always hurts down ticket members of the party especially when Trump ultimately won the state. At the same time, voter suppression played a role in Clinton's ultimate defeat. It played a role in Feingold and other Democrat's defeat.

Hillary Clinton did not run as a Third Way Democrat. You claim she ran as one, when she did not.

In the end, you can't explain Feingold without blaming Hillary Clinton, which means you're no different from the posters you so deride: you are incapable of doing anything but blame Hillary Clinton, in effect being just like Trump: "Why not blame everything on her?" It gives you an easy excuse to build your own narrative about what the state of the US is, without ever having to take any responsibility for yourself and the people you influence or the people of your community. If you don't get 100 percent of what you want, you don't get to throw tantrums during the election, spreading negativity, then throw tantrums after saying "I told you so" when you were part of the problem.

We believed the electorate had the potential to become more progressive: that they could reject the hatred and racism that divided the country, and acknowledge for once that all people are equal and deserving for respect and dignity. This progressivism is even more basic and fundamental than the progressivism you so espouse as the 'real progressivism'.

You don't know anything about any of those political figures you rail against, other than that you don't want them at the top. When Pelosi is very skilled and very good at herding the cats in the House. When she and Schumer have the ability to get the dollars needed to invest in and win elections.

Your posts and railing against Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi, and so on only indicate one thing: your position is "anti-establishment". But anti-establishment is not a policy: it does not, by default, have any ideas about how to make lives better, nor does it have ideas about how to win elections. It is the child's wish to escape authority, the child's desire to take the power and become the establishment rather than to attempt any substantial earning or learning involved.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Feingold performed well below Clinton, so it's hard to look at him and point to her as being the reason why.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Hillary Clinton did not run as a Third Way Democrat. You claim she ran as one, when she did not.

In the end, you can't explain Feingold without blaming Hillary Clinton, which means you're no different from the posters you so deride: you are incapable of doing anything but blame Hillary Clinton, in effect being just like Trump: "Why not blame everything on her?" It gives you an easy excuse to build your own narrative about what the state of the US is, without ever having to take any responsibility for yourself and the people you influence or the people of your community. If you don't get 100 percent of what you want, you don't get to throw tantrums during the election, spreading negativity, then throw tantrums after saying "I told you so" when you were part of the problem.

We believed the electorate had the potential to become more progressive: that they could reject the hatred and racism that divided the country, and acknowledge for once that all people are equal and deserving for respect and dignity. This progressivism is even more basic and fundamental than the progressivism you so espouse as the 'real progressivism'.

You don't know anything about any of those political figures you rail against, other than that you don't want them at the top. When Pelosi is very skilled and very good at herding the cats in the House. When she and Schumer have the ability to get the dollars needed to invest in and win elections.

Your posts and railing against Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi, and so on only indicate one thing: your position is "anti-establishment". But anti-establishment is not a policy: it does not, by default, have any ideas about how to make lives better, nor does it have ideas about how to win elections. It is the child's wish to escape authority, the child's desire to take the power and become the establishment rather than to attempt any substantial earning or learning involved.

Every. Word. Of. This.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yes NYTimes, musing about de facto barring African Americans from voting is an "irreverent streak"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us/politics/steve-bannon-white-house.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

What a fucking rag

 

[AndyD]

I have this at my McDonalds in Manhattan. It's great. I don't have to be embarrassed anymore! I don't even see a person. I order my thing, it comes out on a little area with a person calling numbers.

Experienced this abroad years ago and have been wishing for it in all fast food places here. It would make so much more sense.

 

[Blader]

No. At the end of the day Democrats ran a candidate who considers their primary constituency to be Wall Street and megamillionaires. You can talk about sexism this and the FBI that. But at the end of the day had the Democrats run an otherwise similar candidate who was also a white male like Tim Kaine (Big Daddy Kaine as Hill-Gaf love call him) or Andrew Cuomo, we still would have lost this election.

You can talk about "most qualified" but you're completely missing the point. When you're running for president, you aren't just describing how fit you are for the job or how closely you've studied others who have held the mantle, you are defining what the job will be when you become president. When your message is "status quo" and everyone is struggling of course you're going to lose. When your message is "Multinational Corporations and megamillionaires can do no wrong and are the most important people in the world" you will lose. I live in an inner city that is extremely liberal. People here are all liberal, and in general like Obama as a personality, but do no like how he has governed. They don't like the policies his pushed. They don't like how he never prosecuted a single banker responsible for the 2008 crash. They feel disheartened by how little he's fought for things like Social Security and now the DAPL. And they feel like he's abandoned them and sided with wealthy donors. If your message towards your base and America is more of that, of course you're going to have a depressed turn out and lose the election.

But go ahead. Keep pushing anti-worker pro-megamillionaire politicians like Tim Kaine, Andrew Cuomo, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer. It's not like me and millions of other people in America and around the world are going to suffer from it. Oh wait...!

I think you are pushing Andrew Cuomo more than anyone else I've seen here (to be clear, I've never seen anyone in PoliGAF or even GAF as a whole push Andrew Cuomo to be anything beyond what he is now).

 

[RDreamer]

Feingold lost for a number of reasons. While money in politics is less relevant on the presidential level because of all the free media, it is still extremely toxic and damaging on the state and local levels where there is so much less attention and media. The same goes for Colorado's Healthcare initiative. At the same time, Hillary was an unpopular candidate in Wisconsin, and a bad candidate at the top of the ticket almost always hurts down ticket members of the party especially when Trump ultimately won the state. At the same time, voter suppression played a role in Clinton's ultimate defeat. It played a role in Feingold and other Democrat's defeat.

Do you have any links stating Feingold lost because of money in politics? Every article I pull up has them pretty close in funding.

In terms of fundraising, the race is among the tightest in the country, not to mention one of the few where a challenger has raised more money than an incumbent. The pair is currently separated by less than a million dollars, with the Democrat Feingold and his $15.6 million narrowly ahead of the Tea Party-backed Republican Johnson and his $14.8 million.

 

[Wilsongt]

Yes NYTimes, musing about de facto barring African Americans from voting is an "irreverent streak"


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/27/us/politics/steve-bannon-white-house.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

What a fucking rag

Welcome to post-racial America!

 

[Totakeke]

Feingold performed well below Clinton, so it's hard to look at him and point to her as being the reason why.

Hillary was so abnormally awful that she made anyone to her left look worse.

That was actually suggested, I didn't want to go into a debate about that.

 

[AndyD]

He takes anything he sees on the internet as gospel, and has more or less said as much (to Bill O'Reilly! of all people).

So I had an interesting insight into this last week when talking to several older members of the family (50s and 60s), all of whom voted Republican. They are the type to forward email chains and believe in the food bloggess or whatever her name is.

They brought up some Facebook articles which were false (some of the ones discussed last week all over) and they were incredulous that there can be fake stuff posted to social media and on TV news networks. I had them do the "pick the false news" test.

Eventually we reached the conclusion that they grew up and were conditioned that "news" had integrity so whether it came from radio, papers, TV, it was always backed by integrity and was due trust and deference and respect (even if it had a political slant). However, in today's age of social media, all of that is gone, and anyone can say anything, just pure lies, let alone slant, but older folks who are conditioned to trust media do so and never realize the age of trust in media is partly gone.

I'd like to say it was eye opening for a few of them, but too little too late.

 

[RDreamer]

Trump and his NatSec Advisor both read InfoWars, so probably. He takes anything he sees on the internet as gospel, and has more or less said as much (to Bill O'Reilly! of all people).

Conway also said this weekend instead of intel briefings he gets his info "from a number of sources."

 

[B-Dubs]

Hillary Clinton did not run as a Third Way Democrat. You claim she ran as one, when she did not.

In the end, you can't explain Feingold without blaming Hillary Clinton, which means you're no different from the posters you so deride: you are incapable of doing anything but blame Hillary Clinton, in effect being just like Trump: "Why not blame everything on her?" It gives you an easy excuse to build your own narrative about what the state of the US is, without ever having to take any responsibility for yourself and the people you influence or the people of your community. If you don't get 100 percent of what you want, you don't get to throw tantrums during the election, spreading negativity, then throw tantrums after saying "I told you so" when you were part of the problem.

We believed the electorate had the potential to become more progressive: that they could reject the hatred and racism that divided the country, and acknowledge for once that all people are equal and deserving for respect and dignity. This progressivism is even more basic and fundamental than the progressivism you so espouse as the 'real progressivism'.

You don't know anything about any of those political figures you rail against, other than that you don't want them at the top. When Pelosi is very skilled and very good at herding the cats in the House. When she and Schumer have the ability to get the dollars needed to invest in and win elections.

Your posts and railing against Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi, and so on only indicate one thing: your position is "anti-establishment". But anti-establishment is not a policy: it does not, by default, have any ideas about how to make lives better, nor does it have ideas about how to win elections. It is the child's wish to escape authority, the child's desire to take the power and become the establishment rather than to attempt any substantial earning or learning involved.

Fire.

I think you are pushing Andrew Cuomo more than anyone else I've seen here (to be clear, I've never seen anyone in PoliGAF or even GAF as a whole push Andrew Cuomo to be anything beyond what he is now).

I mean, I think he deserves a bit more credit than he gets here for the minimum wage increase to $15/hr and the 12-weeks paid family leave, but that's about it. Dude's got like no charisma and we need a shiny dude.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

So I had an interesting insight into this last week when talking to several older members of the family (50s and 60s), all of whom voted Republican. They are the type to forward email chains and believe in the food bloggess or whatever her name is.

They brought up some Facebook articles which were false (some of the ones discussed last week all over) and they were incredulous that there can be fake stuff posted to social media and on TV news networks. I had them do the "pick the false news" test.

Eventually we reached the conclusion that they grew up and were conditioned that "news" had integrity so whether it came from radio, papers, TV, it was always backed by integrity and was due trust and deference and respect (even if it had a political slant). However, in today's age of social media, all of that is gone, and anyone can say anything, just pure lies, let alone slant, but older folks who are conditioned to trust media do so and never realize the age of trust in media is partly gone.

I'd like to say it was eye opening for a few of them, but too little too late.

It must be a pretty scary thing to believe all the news. Fake news generally makes the country and people's lives look a lot worse than they actually are. You'd be led to believe the country is basically on the brink of total anarchy and society is on its way to collapse any year now.

I mean, I think he deserves a bit more credit than he gets here for the minimum wage increase to $15/hr and the 12-weeks paid family leave, but that's about it. Dude's got like no charisma and we need a shiny dude.

Rural people also HATE him with a fire I haven't seen since Clinton. He lightly tapped guns, just slightly, to the point of not even really doing anything, and now he's public enemy #1

 

[B-Dubs]

Rural people also HATE him with a fire I haven't seen since Clinton. He lightly tapped guns, just slightly, to the point of not even really doing anything, and now he's public enemy #1

Not really much of a surprise, he's a NY Dem who passed a gun control bill. It doesn't matter that he didn't do much with it, just the image is enough. That said he's governor until he gets bored, dies, or is indicted for whatever it is goes on up in Albany. At which point Schniderman takes over.

 

[Mighty Chin]

Oh just fuck right off, Chuck.

Same old Todd, just reporting the facts.

 

[Mighty Chin]

Hillary Clinton did not run as a Third Way Democrat. You claim she ran as one, when she did not.

In the end, you can't explain Feingold without blaming Hillary Clinton, which means you're no different from the posters you so deride: you are incapable of doing anything but blame Hillary Clinton, in effect being just like Trump: "Why not blame everything on her?" It gives you an easy excuse to build your own narrative about what the state of the US is, without ever having to take any responsibility for yourself and the people you influence or the people of your community. If you don't get 100 percent of what you want, you don't get to throw tantrums during the election, spreading negativity, then throw tantrums after saying "I told you so" when you were part of the problem.

We believed the electorate had the potential to become more progressive: that they could reject the hatred and racism that divided the country, and acknowledge for once that all people are equal and deserving for respect and dignity. This progressivism is even more basic and fundamental than the progressivism you so espouse as the 'real progressivism'.

You don't know anything about any of those political figures you rail against, other than that you don't want them at the top. When Pelosi is very skilled and very good at herding the cats in the House. When she and Schumer have the ability to get the dollars needed to invest in and win elections.

Your posts and railing against Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi, and so on only indicate one thing: your position is "anti-establishment". But anti-establishment is not a policy: it does not, by default, have any ideas about how to make lives better, nor does it have ideas about how to win elections. It is the child's wish to escape authority, the child's desire to take the power and become the establishment rather than to attempt any substantial earning or learning involved.

Bravo

 

[Cesare Borgia]

Trump's election fraud tweet is interesting...what if he loses next time? Is he going to refuse to concede, declare victory, etc etc? To go even further, if he were forced to concede, how would a Trump administration behave during the transition period? The Obama admin has done a great job helping Trump's people, just as the Bush admin helped the Obama transition team.

Speaking of transition teams, future republican presidents will almost certainly have to include Trump staffers. Meaning those same shady, seedy trash people will be recycled over the next two decades or so. Ugh...

 

[The Technomancer]

So I had an interesting insight into this last week when talking to several older members of the family (50s and 60s), all of whom voted Republican. They are the type to forward email chains and believe in the food bloggess or whatever her name is.

They brought up some Facebook articles which were false (some of the ones discussed last week all over) and they were incredulous that there can be fake stuff posted to social media and on TV news networks. I had them do the "pick the false news" test.

Eventually we reached the conclusion that they grew up and were conditioned that "news" had integrity so whether it came from radio, papers, TV, it was always backed by integrity and was due trust and deference and respect (even if it had a political slant). However, in today's age of social media, all of that is gone, and anyone can say anything, just pure lies, let alone slant, but older folks who are conditioned to trust media do so and never realize the age of trust in media is partly gone.

I'd like to say it was eye opening for a few of them, but too little too late.

Yup exactly this. The word I've seen used to describe it is the "flattening of information" and its a problem with the internet as a whole and with social media especially. It operates on two levels:
-The aforementioned presentation of all "news" alongside all other news without discrimination by source or truthfulness
-The more general juxtaposition of all information regardless of type, cat photos next to video game reviews next to reports from Syria, which over the time has the effect of turning all information into a sort of indistinguishable blend, in which the relative importance of things is diminished

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Trump's election fraud tweet is interesting...what if he loses next time? Is he going to refuse to concede, declare victory, etc etc? To go even further, if he were forced to concede, how would a Trump administration behave during the transition period? The Obama admin has done a great job helping Trump's people, just as the Bush admin helped the Obama transition team.

Speaking of transition teams, future republican presidents will almost certainly have to include Trump staffers. Meaning those same shady, seedy trash people will be recycled over the next two decades or so. Ugh...

He'll make the transition of power as inconvenient and tedious as possible just for spite

I'm not convinced he runs in 2020. He pretty obviously does not want to be president, and 2020 is an easy out for him with his age. And that way, he'll never have lost a presidential election.

 

[Mighty Chin]

I think Trump will step down some time after the Mid Terms. I don't think he has/had any real interest in Governing. Anchored in the White House for 4 years at his age it will be like Prison for him.

 

[B-Dubs]

Trump's not the sort of dude to give up on that much power without a fight.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

If he ducks out at midterms, that means we could have 10 years of Pence...

...

............

 

[metalslimer]

Hillary Clinton did not run as a Third Way Democrat. You claim she ran as one, when she did not.

In the end, you can't explain Feingold without blaming Hillary Clinton, which means you're no different from the posters you so deride: you are incapable of doing anything but blame Hillary Clinton, in effect being just like Trump: "Why not blame everything on her?" It gives you an easy excuse to build your own narrative about what the state of the US is, without ever having to take any responsibility for yourself and the people you influence or the people of your community. If you don't get 100 percent of what you want, you don't get to throw tantrums during the election, spreading negativity, then throw tantrums after saying "I told you so" when you were part of the problem.

We believed the electorate had the potential to become more progressive: that they could reject the hatred and racism that divided the country, and acknowledge for once that all people are equal and deserving for respect and dignity. This progressivism is even more basic and fundamental than the progressivism you so espouse as the 'real progressivism'.

You don't know anything about any of those political figures you rail against, other than that you don't want them at the top. When Pelosi is very skilled and very good at herding the cats in the House. When she and Schumer have the ability to get the dollars needed to invest in and win elections.

Your posts and railing against Hillary, Schumer, Pelosi, and so on only indicate one thing: your position is "anti-establishment". But anti-establishment is not a policy: it does not, by default, have any ideas about how to make lives better, nor does it have ideas about how to win elections. It is the child's wish to escape authority, the child's desire to take the power and become the establishment rather than to attempt any substantial earning or learning involved.

Thank you so much.