I apologize. Sometimes you never know.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
I apologize. Sometimes you never know.
What, exactly, would make you doubt it?
I thought the women's march was a rallying cry for women and allies around the nation to get together and become aware/active. I remember numerous interviews with people who either didn't vote or mothers with daughters who didn't vote. Seems silly to expect the person these people regret not voting for, wonder just why the fuck they didn't vote. Trump went out of his way, every single day, to show you how much of an asshole he really was. What wasn't known prior? She's damn right to feel that way and right to write about it. The election of Trump = US citizens failed themselves, they have to learn to accept it.
I think I was confusing you with someone here who was a Let the World Berner.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
You know when you're accusing pigeon of being a Bernie-or-Buster you really need to re-examine what the fuck you're doing.
Wait, was that you I was thinking of? Goddamn it. I've been out of this thread too long.
I am disappointed in anyone who showed a discontinuous level of political engagement after Trump was elected, given the predictable consequences of what would happen afterwards.
And yet, clearly many did so.
Tbh anyone who looks at that should see something deeply wrong regardless of whether they were the party's nominee or were just an average Joe who wanted to stop the openly racist idiot grifting moron being propped up by Putin from becoming president.
I don't really see any coherent connection between saying "where was this before the election" to "wow she's just making it all about her".
That is, unless Hillary wrote "I am disappointed because these people chose not to become my personal army and serve my personal destiny of becoming Great Leader", this just seems like Yet Another Hillary Rorsarch.
It's a legitimate point that I still think people are missing. In America the voters hold the power. The people who failed in 2016 were the voters.
Sure. It wasn't Hillary's fault she lost, it was the voters.
And it wasn't Hillary's fault she set up a private email server and then tried to wipe it herself, it was the Republicans and Colin Powell.
And it wasn't Hillary's fault she kept associating with Anthony Weiner, that was Huma Abedin.
And it wasn't Hillary's fault she took all that money from Goldman Sachs, that was really Goldman Sachs's fault for offering it.
But most of all it wasn't Hillary's fault we nominated her for president. That was our fault.
So it would behoove us to figure out what the fuck we did wrong, which is kind of my point. This is a good time for us to start figuring out why the Democratic Party was bad enough at judging characters that we thought Hillary would win. Which is exactly what I'm trying to help people do, right now.
Maybe you guys should start doing the same thing before we fuck up again!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Not me either. Maybe it was Suikoguy? I'm pretty sure he was a Bernie or Buster.
I've just tried to find what she says about the Women's March... The immediate hits on Google:
Daily Mail
New Right News
American Lookout
Can anyone find me what she says with a not hateful/bigoted/heavily biased source? Or I could just wait til Tuesday, but whatevs.
https://twitter.com/dylanlscott/status/906317096614813697
White women voted for Trump over Hillary. If I were her, I'd be spitting nails about venom about the hypocrisy and behaviour of white people during that election. She's being mild about it t.
Just again, to repeat - white women voted for a self confessed serial sexual assault era and rapist over one of the most qualified candidates ever. Yes, that's partly her fault - but that doesn't exonerate the voters either.
Just again, to repeat - white women voted for a self confessed serial sexual assault era and rapist over one of the most qualified candidates ever. Yes, that's partly her fault - but that doesn't exonerate the voters either.
I think I've been pretty clear about what I think about Trump voters.
The thing about culpability is you generally don't run out.
@srubenfeld
White House issues memo delegating authority to administer the Global Magnitsky Act sanctions to @USTreasury and @StateDept.
Right after Trump meets with the new Russian Ambassador...
Man, everyone loves talking adoptions.
so uh, is Trump ever actually going to have the buck stop at him, or what
I've thought about this a lot. I lean towards thinking the Clinton's grip over the party by 2015 was an extremely exaggerated form of office politics. The Clintons spent years exchanging favors, collecting IOUs, making implicit threats against those who gained their enmity, placing friends into positions of power (McAuliffe, Wasserman Schulz), opening their network of donors and contacts to friends and closing it off to their enemies, and schmoozing everyone with cards and remembering birthdays. The Clintons made themselves the gatekeepers and the kingmakers within the party. Their coalition was the strongest power center in the organization. By 2015 the Clintons held veto power over whether there would even be a contested nomination.
.....
Do you always find that throwing up random straw men is the most effective way to engage in a constructive discussion? Or only when you're trying to bail out of a conversation after making stupid points?
None of this has anything to do with your original dumb claim, or anything anyone else in the thread said, so I'm left to conclude you kind of realize it was dumb and are trying to change the subject.
Whatever. Sometimes a good rant is needed I guess. Carry on.
Did y'all see this shit yet?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...randum-secretary-state-and-secretary-treasury
Trump seems to be delegating the (Global) Magnisky act to Mnuchin
Edit: and tillerson
Also this is a different act than the original magnisky act
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pres...randum-secretary-state-and-secretary-treasury
Trump seems to be delegating the (Global) Magnisky act to Mnuchin
Edit: and tillerson
Also this is a different act than the original magnisky act
AntraxSuicide
Banned
So this is a broader question. Is the person talking about a campaign or in general? Obviously for campaigns, that's the case. You gotta say a lot of things that aren't true or make people feel better to get their votes.
But outside of that, I think this is a problem in our country. People don't want to be responsible for their political acts, and I'm quite surprised if you intended this argument to be taken in general instead of in a campaign because I kinda count on you to be the guy holding feet to the fire on this.
It's most definitely a fact that there were people at those marches who didn't vote (among other politically apathetic acts) and it's just wrong to let them disavow that act. Those votes were needed to prevent deportations, to preserve Healthcare, and much more.
To say it all this different way, politicians who are in some way trying to win votes (not just candidates themselves but their employees) have to let voters off the hook for their malicious political acts, but people in general should stop doing that. It's "agree to disagree" coddling and it's not a good thing in general.
Edit:and don't let Crab fool you, he's the typical Bernie or Bust guy. I don't even think he voted!
I could not care less about the "political ramifications" of a memoir of a failed politician who will never run for office again.
If I read a memoir from Hillary, it's because I want to know how/what she thinks. The reason why she didn't cut passages that, knowingly or otherwise, are unflattering to her is because it's how she feels.
Whatever. I don't think a memoir has to be a political manifesto, and I think close-reading it as some kind of political urtext for "the future of the Democratic Party" is disingenuous and carping.
And absurd.
If I read a memoir from Hillary, it's because I want to know how/what she thinks. The reason why she didn't cut passages that, knowingly or otherwise, are unflattering to her is because it's how she feels.
Whatever. I don't think a memoir has to be a political manifesto, and I think close-reading it as some kind of political urtext for "the future of the Democratic Party" is disingenuous and carping.
And absurd.
RustyNails
Member
You're thinking of Daniel B. He used to post on neogaf from his PS3 using dualshock controller.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
20 year long smear campaign probably. People were sick of hearing about her by the time she was running for president.
It's not odd. It's not really a big mystery either, though; people are really open about expressing why they hate Hillary!
Crab or pigeon? Everybody, including pigeon, knows that Crab isn't an American citizen, so we all know he didn't vote.
Not a shop, apparently:
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
That is the question I've been wondering. It's like people want to place all the blame on her for Trump being in the White House.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Yeah, I was joking.
So, I really feel this is just bitch-eating-crackers.
I can see how people could infer this is her whining and making it all about herself, but really, how about we just take the words at face value:
When Hillary was literally one of the most experienced people to run for office; when Trump admitted on video to sexual assault; when Trump fostered racism and hatred... People were still both-sides'ing. Where was the solidarity? What, because Hillary brought a ton of shit on herself, people couldn't be arsed to vote for the best of a bad choice? And that makes it okay to blame Hillary?
It is the electorate's fault. And people should stop coddling the electorate and saying "Aw, diddums, did the wascally DNC not nominate the perfect candidate? Nevermiiiiiind. It's okay to not vote." It's not okay to not vote. It's not okay to blame the candidate, when the policies were - on the whole - good policies. Especially when you're asking why Hillary failed against Trump. She knew she couldn't convince people of her views, which is why (I think) she did so much negative campaigning.
However, what she wrote is also one of those sentences where, really, you should avoid writing it if you can. So much comes down to tone of voice and body language, and people will obviously infer based on their own bias.
I dunno. She's not charismatic except in a very geeky way. She's narrating the Audible version of her memoir, and she's a bit of a flat speaker. And I do think there's an element of sexism and just the past 20 years of shit flung at her. But I just don't get it generally.
"She wasn't good enough to beat Trump, and that's her fault, not ours for refusing to care about politics."
Aaron Strife
Banned
I think we can acknowledge Hillary's flaws as a candidate (including some very self-inflicted wounds like the email server) while also recognizing that the American peoples' apathy and ignorance towards the whole process is largely what gave us Trump.
benicillin
Banned
In addition to, you know, a broken electoral system and a system of checks and balances that more or less doesn't exist.
As much as we can blame the American electorate (who voted for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump by a not insignificant margin) we can blame Republican policies that have made it harder for people to vote and have a vested interest in tilting the hand in their favor.
A functioning two-party democracy would already have kicked Trump to the curb a month after inauguration.
RustyNails
Member
How do we know he didn't vote, though?
benicillin
Banned
Most people did vote for Hillary Clinton though.
Compare the amount of people who voted in 2016 with the amount of people of voting age currently living in the US, most people didn't Vote period. It's pathetic.
There were polls taken at rallies like Seattle that revealed at least half of the protesters didn't vote at all. I've not seen anything to make me think that the women's rallies were anything different than any other rallies - a way to show you're angry without actualy having to do anything about it.
Like you said, there was no doubt about what Trump was. Not voting for the one candidate in the position to do anything about it and bitching about it afterwards makes those that did that hypocrites. Admission to a rally should be an 'I Voted' Sticker or a plausible story of how your entry was barred from the polling place.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I don't know how you engage more people.
Obama was charisma personified and still couldn't crack 60% turnout when he was first elected.
One of my biggest disappointments with Sanders was his claim that he'd get turnout up to 70-75% with no elaboration on how. It seemed a lot of that was predicated on "people will come out to vote for me because I'm so wonderful" and that is absolutely the wrong lesson to take from the Obama years, or even the Clinton years. If you really want to activate a mass of people who never vote, that has to go beyond simple charisma and that probably doesn't happen in just one election cycle. The charisma factor only appeals to people who already vote, or who were going to vote. Their concerns and obstacles are far different from the people who've sat out the process entirely.
I was at a Keith Ellison town hall and he pointed out Minnesota had the highest turnout in the country last year at 75%. He then pointed out this was pathetic. I can't disagree! But at the same time, Clinton took Minnesota by a very slim margin. Had turnout in PA, WI, MI and FL matched that, we might be talking about a different president right now.
I think Democrats' biggest goal for right now should be juicing up midterm turnout next year. Even under gerrymandered maps, the sheer brunt of 100% of Clinton voters turning out compared to say, 75% of Trump voters would be more than enough to flip some seats.
In the 2002 Senate race in Minnesota (the one held right after Wellstone died), we had 80% turnout. Let's get that again.
Obama was charisma personified and still couldn't crack 60% turnout when he was first elected.
One of my biggest disappointments with Sanders was his claim that he'd get turnout up to 70-75% with no elaboration on how. It seemed a lot of that was predicated on "people will come out to vote for me because I'm so wonderful" and that is absolutely the wrong lesson to take from the Obama years, or even the Clinton years. If you really want to activate a mass of people who never vote, that has to go beyond simple charisma and that probably doesn't happen in just one election cycle. The charisma factor only appeals to people who already vote, or who were going to vote. Their concerns and obstacles are far different from the people who've sat out the process entirely.
I was at a Keith Ellison town hall and he pointed out Minnesota had the highest turnout in the country last year at 75%. He then pointed out this was pathetic. I can't disagree! But at the same time, Clinton took Minnesota by a very slim margin. Had turnout in PA, WI, MI and FL matched that, we might be talking about a different president right now.
I think Democrats' biggest goal for right now should be juicing up midterm turnout next year. Even under gerrymandered maps, the sheer brunt of 100% of Clinton voters turning out compared to say, 75% of Trump voters would be more than enough to flip some seats.
In the 2002 Senate race in Minnesota (the one held right after Wellstone died), we had 80% turnout. Let's get that again.
VendettaRed07
Member
It could also be perhaps many women who marched weren't motivated to turn out for someone married to a lifetime abuser of women.
So they didn't vote for someone who was a victim of their husband's indiscretions? They don't know what they were marching for if that's the case. Ridiculous assertion.
VendettaRed07
Member
She's hardly a victim if her husband was guilty of rape and she chose to turn a blind eye to it.
shinra-bansho
Member
No thanks.
Also, I looked at all the protests after the election, women's march included really, and thought, where was this before the election, so whatever. Especially with stories in the Times where the rando person holding signs now did not vote. I call bullshit on anyone saying that that thought didn't cross their mind.
People are great at being motivated to yell at clouds after the fact.
excelsiorlef
Member
Autodidact
Banned
No, Lady MacHillary not only condoned but encouraged her husband. We should totally hold her responsible for his actions -
anything to excuse the electorate because we can't acknowledge how ugly, dumb, and hateful our friends and relatives are.
So, they marched for "women" and women's unity against Trump, but defined the female nominee by her relationship with her husband, not as a person in her own right?
It's possible, I guess, but highly unlikely to be the case.
No, she's a victim. You're not taking that away because of Bill. If Bill is infact a rapist, what do you think being his wife is like for all these years? You going to shame all women who didn't leave their shitty husbands as well? How easy do you think such a thing is and what these women need to consider when in such a relationship?
Highlighting the relevant words there, to show the correct emphasis.
Unless, of course, it's a proven uncontestable fact that Bill is a rapist and Hillary knew about it and did nothing? I may have missed that.
In discussion about making voting easier in hopes of attracting the percentage that doesn't, people around my age (aka millennials) feel quite strongly about being about to do it on their phone.
But considering the fabulous trail of hacking in recent years, I think vote by mail is probably a much better idea. The problem is that turnout still isn't that high in states that do vote by mail, though the turnout is higher than your 'poll station' states.
But considering the fabulous trail of hacking in recent years, I think vote by mail is probably a much better idea. The problem is that turnout still isn't that high in states that do vote by mail, though the turnout is higher than your 'poll station' states.
Autodidact
Banned
People on the left love to regurgitate right-wing talking points that confirm their biases and preconceptions. News at 11.
ShadowSwordmaster
Banned
Trump won even when there was video evidence of him saying that it was okay for him to sexual assault woman makes that whole argument null and void.
VendettaRed07
Member
I don't really love doing that at all.
I don't see how it's a right wing talking point to have a person who has been accused of rape and sexual assault multiple times is a bad thing to have attached to you. Not everyone is going to just dismiss it.
I think it's possible Harris or Gillibrand, if they do run will potentially do better to turn out women because they don't have that problem as far as we know
Autodidact
Banned
The majority of white women voted for an admitted sexual assailant. If being a predator yourself doesn't affect your turnout, why would being married to one? Especially since the two are not morally equivalent, no matter how you want to spin it.
Respond to that criticism or else, yes, you will be regurgitating right-wing talking points.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked