Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
A Town Called Malus wrote: The problem is that the fringe elements of the republican party have turned out to be the moderates.
Asking women to vote for a woman because she understands and has first hand experience of issues that women face is not sexist, especially when the alternative is a man who claims to be able to sexually assault women because he is rich, famous and powerful. In that scenario Trump personifies many of the issues that women are having to deal with on a regular basis.
Still sexist mate. You just happen to agree with it, doesn't change what it is.
No, it is not sexist to ask women to vote for someone who understands their issues rather than someone who is their issues.
That sounds like the definition of sexism actually.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
these are the people you're now kissing the ass of.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Mitochondria wrote: A nation should put its citizens ahead of any other consideration.
There is a whole wide world for the refugees to flee to.
So, a nation should put its citizens ahead of any other considerations, but only if that nation is the US because there needs to be a whole wide world for refugees to flee to that doesn't have policies like the US? Your argument here is not consistent at all.
A country does have an obligation to its citizen's first and foremost.
The refugees should stay and fight for their country. Especially the males aged 15 and up.
A nation should put its citizens ahead of any other consideration.
There is a whole wide world for the refugees to flee to.
There's no small level of irony about a country founded by people leaving their homeland to start a better life, refusing entry to people who are leaving their homeland to start a better life. Especially since said country has some level of involvement in wanting them to leave their homeland in the first place.
Why can't you look after your own people AND refugees?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/08 12:41:59
Mitochondria wrote: A country does have an obligation to its citizen's first and foremost.
The refugees should stay and fight for their country. Especially the males aged 15 and up.
Yeah, because it's just that easy. I'm glad you're here to share with us your deep insight on world affairs.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/08 12:42:46
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
A nation should put its citizens ahead of any other consideration.
There is a whole wide world for the refugees to flee to.
There's no small level of irony about a country founded by people leaving their homeland to start a better life, refusing entry to people who are leaving their homeland to start a better life. Especially since said country has some level of involvement in wanting them to leave their homeland in the first place.
Why can't you look after your own people AND refugees?
Thats what the Aztecs said.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
A nation should put its citizens ahead of any other consideration.
There is a whole wide world for the refugees to flee to.
There's no small level of irony about a country founded by people leaving their homeland to start a better life, refusing entry to people who are leaving their homeland to start a better life. Especially since said country has some level of involvement in wanting them to leave their homeland in the first place.
Why can't you look after your own people AND refugees?
Thats what the Aztecs said.
Well those Xtians don't have a great record when they travel to the New World do they now ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
A nation should put its citizens ahead of any other consideration.
There is a whole wide world for the refugees to flee to.
There's no small level of irony about a country founded by people leaving their homeland to start a better life, refusing entry to people who are leaving their homeland to start a better life. Especially since said country has some level of involvement in wanting them to leave their homeland in the first place.
Why can't you look after your own people AND refugees?
Thats what the Aztecs said.
Well those Xtians don't have a great record when they travel to the New World do they now ?
Exactly. Imagine if the Iroquois had had proper immigration control.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
75 years ago the Japanese displayed professional brilliance and technological power launching surprises from Hawaii to the Philippines
Spoiler:
can you imagine the volley of bile and outrage if Obama or any democrat had tweeted this ?
Fun fact, to avoid having to declare himself a lobbyist and have to follow some government regulations, Newt Gingrich instead declares himself a history professor. Most of the rest of us label him an donkey-cave directly responsible for the decline of US politics in the last two decades.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mitochondria wrote: A country does have an obligation to its citizen's first and foremost.
The refugees should stay and fight for their country. Especially the males aged 15 and up.
Yes, clearly what's lacking the world is child soldiers.
With the opinions given here, it really is a matter of time before Trump taps you for his cabinet.
Yes, because in 1519 Hernando Cortes arrived and pleaded for the Aztecs to grant him refugee status,. When it was granted Cortes immediately claimed free dental care and social security, and had lots of kids who all grew up to be suicide bombers and toppled the empire.
Yep, that's what happened. So your comparison is totally sensible.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/08 14:29:27
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Exactly. Imagine if the Iroquois had had proper immigration control.
This brings up a rather interesting historical double standard. I have recently heard from many people that "race is just a social construct and doesn't exist" and that we should just have open boarders because "then we'd all be Americans".
Due to the recent events of the DAPL, many of those same people have also told me about how white people took Native lands and almost forced the extinction of a race.
Exactly. Imagine if the Iroquois had had proper immigration control.
This brings up a rather interesting historical double standard. I have recently heard from many people that "race is just a social construct and doesn't exist" and that we should just have open boarders because "then we'd all be Americans".
Due to the recent events of the DAPL, many of those same people have also told me about how white people took Native lands and almost forced the extinction of a race.
I was unaware that "American" is a race. Race refers to a person's physical characteristics, such as bone structure and skin, hair, or eye color. I'm pretty sure that's not a social construct and does, indeed, exist.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/08 14:52:14
cuda1179 wrote: This brings up a rather interesting historical double standard. I have recently heard from many people that "race is just a social construct and doesn't exist" and that we should just have open boarders because "then we'd all be Americans".
Due to the recent events of the DAPL, many of those same people have also told me about how white people took Native lands and almost forced the extinction of a race.
That's not a double standard. First up, the European settlers in North America set up their own societies, completely seperate from the existing NA societies. In time as their numbers and strength grew they expanded their own societies, in some cases pushing NA tribes from their land, in other cases absorbing these groups to be minorities.
In contrast, the refugees are asking to be allowed in to be part of the existing US society, and the only issue is whether the US allows them or not. The number being considered is minute compared to the US population, and if accepted they will brought in under the laws and government of the US.
Recognising these as different things is not a double standard, it is seeing two very different things as very different things.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
A nation should put its citizens ahead of any other consideration.
There is a whole wide world for the refugees to flee to.
There's no small level of irony about a country founded by people leaving their homeland to start a better life, refusing entry to people who are leaving their homeland to start a better life. Especially since said country has some level of involvement in wanting them to leave their homeland in the first place.
Why can't you look after your own people AND refugees?
Small minds can only muster small vision. I mean this as a general response towards no one in particular but towards this whole "close the borders" nonsense as it's a global issue and needs squashing. There's the need for intelligent immigration policy, surely, but the xenophobic "build a wall" gak is a slap in the face to our founding principles. Our country, in particular, became and is great because of immigration and free trade. Now, those two issues have become the boogeyman to the fear-addled who eat up the lies and conspiracy theories fed to them by politicians playing upon their insecurities and reinforcing their complete belief in the misinformation they've taken as gospel.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/08 15:11:57
Herzlos wrote: How do you think a 15 year old boy is going to stand up in a guerilla combat with a seasoned militia?
Why can't you look after your own people AND refugees?
On the first bit, I'd suggest you look up the Child Soldiers of Africa... They seem to get on well enough, sadly.
As for the second bit... I do agree with Mito only insofar as the gov't. should be looking after it's own citizens "first." BUT!!!! Seeing as how modern government is huge, there is no reason why we cannot look after refugees as well.
But all this is pie in the sky thinking because the US government is too busy looking after the corporations than it is real people.
A nation should put its citizens ahead of any other consideration.
There is a whole wide world for the refugees to flee to.
There's no small level of irony about a country founded by people leaving their homeland to start a better life, refusing entry to people who are leaving their homeland to start a better life. Especially since said country has some level of involvement in wanting them to leave their homeland in the first place.
Why can't you look after your own people AND refugees?
Because these are the same people that think that "muh second amendment rights" will stop them from getting a predator missile dropped on their heads or stop a tank if the gummint declares martial law.
edit:autocorrect
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/08 15:50:51
BigWaaagh wrote: Small minds can only muster small vision. I mean this as a general response towards no one in particular but towards this whole "close the borders" nonsense as it's a global issue and needs squashing. There's the need for intelligent immigration policy, surely, but the xenophobic "build a wall" gak is a slap in the face to our founding principles. Our country, in particular, became and is great because of immigration and free trade. Now, those two issues have become the boogeyman to the fear-addled who eat up the lies and conspiracy theories fed to them by politicians playing upon their insecurities and reinforcing their complete belief in the misinformation they've taken as gospel.
It's worth noting that those issues haven't just become the boogeyman. The Italians were hated. Before them the Irish were hated. Both Catholic of course, who were the feared and hated religion before Islam got noticed by the nativists. I mean, you can go back to the 1840s and 1850s and note while all the high minded folk were trying to debate whether slavery was cool or not, a whole other bunch of people formed the Know Nothing party on account of how much they hated and feared Catholics. And on the street level you had stuff the crazy gang fights in New York between the Nativists and Irish Catholic gangs.
In time those immigrants assimilated, made great contributions to US society, and as they came to be seen as 'real Americans' a bunch of them joined along in hating the next crop of immigrants to the country.
What Trump has done is make that kind of xenophobia more noticeable, and maybe even a bit resurgent, but it certainly isn't anything new.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: But all this is pie in the sky thinking because the US government is too busy looking after the corporations than it is real people.
Don't worry about that, because Trump said he was going to drain the swamp. And so instead he's appointed 3 billionaires and two other Wall St execs to his cabinet. Finally this is a government for the little guy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/08 16:35:51
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
She goes straight from talking about the bad half of Trump voters to the good half, and you and every other person who wanted to get butthurt over this pretended only the first half existed. And you're still pretending now.
No seb... Not pretending at all. She simply fethed up big time. What got her in trouble is two things. One, she attacked her opposition's voters directly... that ought to be a Golden Rule™ for politicians. Two, by her saying "half" - everyone will recognize that she's painting with a huge brush. She was trying to woo the #NeverTrumpers at a time that they were loud and enthusiatically against Trump... what she should've done is gone after those #NeverTrumpers w/o attacking the deplorable voters.
whembly wrote: No seb... Not pretending at all. She simply fethed up big time.
Clinton fethed up, no argument there, I've made that exact point many times in this thread. She made a statement that generalised voters, and was easily able to be manipulated in to sounding like it was an attack on all Trump voters.
But that doesn't mean you or anyone else gets to continue to repeat the manipulated version of her comment, with the important context removed. You did that in the post I responded to, you cut out the part where she talks about how the other half of Trump supporters are people in difficult situations buying in to the promise of a guy who says things will be different, and how it is important to empathise with those people. You cut that part, the part that gave context and meaning to the 'deplorables' part. Just admit that even now you still didn't know the context, meaning and intent of Clinton's deplorable comment. Because it got cut and presented falsely in the media you follow.
Admitting it won't mean Clinton didn't blunder by giving the right wing media something to manipulate, of course. But it will mean that maybe with you and me coming to an understanding about the actual speech given, the political debate will be just a little more informed, and maybe we can build from there
Two, by her saying "half" - everyone will recognize that she's painting with a huge brush.
Uh... I think everyone should have had that figured out when Clinton started the comment with "You know, to just be grossly generalistic..."
She was trying to woo the #NeverTrumpers at a time that they were loud and enthusiatically against Trump... what she should've done is gone after those #NeverTrumpers w/o attacking the deplorable voters.
Which gets back to the point I've made a few times now - Clinton's campaign strategy was built around winning those voters. She put centrist Republicans in the convention, she run away from more progressive policies that might scare those folk away and so on. And in the end it won her basically stuff all. The right still convinced themselves she was a far left socialist, and the left saw enough evidence to convince themselves she was a corporate sell out.
That's the issue with triangulation in a partisan age. Nothing you do will woo the other side, and you risk losing part of your own base. Obama won in 2008 with a vote total Republicans can't match, and they did it without bringing any real number of defections from the Republicans, they just got their own base motivated.
This is simply campaign tactics.
Sure, it was a blunder to make a comment that could be easily manipulated, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pretend there wasn't a manipulation of the comment.
Just like in 2012 it was a mistake from Romney to withhold his taxes for so long in 2012, allowing for Democrats to put out a bunch of lies and innuendo. Recognising Romney made a blunder doesn't mean pretending that Reid's final claims were okay.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/08 17:04:41
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: No seb... Not pretending at all. She simply fethed up big time.
Clinton fethed up, no argument there, I've made that exact point many times in this thread. She made a statement that generalised voters, and was easily able to be manipulated in to sounding like it was an attack on all Trump voters.
But that doesn't mean you or anyone else gets to continue to repeat the manipulated version of her comment, with the important context removed. You did that in the post I responded to, you cut out the part where she talks about how the other half of Trump supporters are people in difficult situations buying in to the promise of a guy who says things will be different, and how it is important to empathise with those people. You cut that part, the part that gave context and meaning to the 'deplorables' part. Just admit that even now you still didn't know the context, meaning and intent of Clinton's deplorable comment. Because it got cut and presented falsely in the media you follow.
Admitting it won't mean Clinton didn't blunder by giving the right wing media something to manipulate, of course. But it will mean that maybe with you and me coming to an understanding about the actual speech given, the political debate will be just a little more informed, and maybe we can build from there
Two, by her saying "half" - everyone will recognize that she's painting with a huge brush.
Uh... I think everyone should have had that figured out when Clinton started the comment with "You know, to just be grossly generalistic..."
She was trying to woo the #NeverTrumpers at a time that they were loud and enthusiatically against Trump... what she should've done is gone after those #NeverTrumpers w/o attacking the deplorable voters.
Which gets back to the point I've made a few times now - Clinton's campaign strategy was built around winning those voters. She put centrist Republicans in the convention, she run away from more progressive policies that might scare those folk away and so on. And in the end it won her basically stuff all. The right still convinced themselves she was a far left socialist, and the left saw enough evidence to convince themselves she was a corporate sell out.
That's the issue with triangulation in a partisan age. Nothing you do will woo the other side, and you risk losing part of your own base. Obama won in 2008 with a vote total Republicans can't match, and they did it without bringing any real number of defections from the Republicans, they just got their own base motivated.
This is simply campaign tactics.
Sure, it was a blunder to make a comment that could be easily manipulated, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pretend there wasn't a manipulation of the comment.
Just like in 2012 it was a mistake from Romney to withhold his taxes for so long in 2012, allowing for Democrats to put out a bunch of lies and innuendo. Recognising Romney made a blunder doesn't mean pretending that Reid's final claims were okay.
]
No seb. You don't get to say it was a manipulation when in fact she said it and the other half bit doesn't change that context.
She used a gross over-generalization that half of trump's supporters are deplorable.
It was as clear as Romney's 47% remarks or Cruz's 'NY Values' spiel.
whembly wrote: No seb... Not pretending at all. She simply fethed up big time.
Clinton fethed up, no argument there, I've made that exact point many times in this thread. She made a statement that generalised voters, and was easily able to be manipulated in to sounding like it was an attack on all Trump voters.
But that doesn't mean you or anyone else gets to continue to repeat the manipulated version of her comment, with the important context removed. You did that in the post I responded to, you cut out the part where she talks about how the other half of Trump supporters are people in difficult situations buying in to the promise of a guy who says things will be different, and how it is important to empathise with those people. You cut that part, the part that gave context and meaning to the 'deplorables' part. Just admit that even now you still didn't know the context, meaning and intent of Clinton's deplorable comment. Because it got cut and presented falsely in the media you follow.
Admitting it won't mean Clinton didn't blunder by giving the right wing media something to manipulate, of course. But it will mean that maybe with you and me coming to an understanding about the actual speech given, the political debate will be just a little more informed, and maybe we can build from there
Two, by her saying "half" - everyone will recognize that she's painting with a huge brush.
Uh... I think everyone should have had that figured out when Clinton started the comment with "You know, to just be grossly generalistic..."
She was trying to woo the #NeverTrumpers at a time that they were loud and enthusiatically against Trump... what she should've done is gone after those #NeverTrumpers w/o attacking the deplorable voters.
Which gets back to the point I've made a few times now - Clinton's campaign strategy was built around winning those voters. She put centrist Republicans in the convention, she run away from more progressive policies that might scare those folk away and so on. And in the end it won her basically stuff all. The right still convinced themselves she was a far left socialist, and the left saw enough evidence to convince themselves she was a corporate sell out.
That's the issue with triangulation in a partisan age. Nothing you do will woo the other side, and you risk losing part of your own base. Obama won in 2008 with a vote total Republicans can't match, and they did it without bringing any real number of defections from the Republicans, they just got their own base motivated.
This is simply campaign tactics.
Sure, it was a blunder to make a comment that could be easily manipulated, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pretend there wasn't a manipulation of the comment.
Just like in 2012 it was a mistake from Romney to withhold his taxes for so long in 2012, allowing for Democrats to put out a bunch of lies and innuendo. Recognising Romney made a blunder doesn't mean pretending that Reid's final claims were okay.
]
No seb. You don't get to say it was a manipulation when in fact she said it and the other half bit doesn't change that context.
She used a gross over-generalization that half of trump's supporters are deplorable.
It was as clear as Romney's 47% remarks or Cruz's 'NY Values' spiel.
Stop defending the indefensible.
Whembly, do you really think Clinton's "Deplorable" is more indefensible than Trump's "Grab em by the blank"?
whembly wrote: No seb... Not pretending at all. She simply fethed up big time.
Clinton fethed up, no argument there, I've made that exact point many times in this thread. She made a statement that generalised voters, and was easily able to be manipulated in to sounding like it was an attack on all Trump voters.
But that doesn't mean you or anyone else gets to continue to repeat the manipulated version of her comment, with the important context removed. You did that in the post I responded to, you cut out the part where she talks about how the other half of Trump supporters are people in difficult situations buying in to the promise of a guy who says things will be different, and how it is important to empathise with those people. You cut that part, the part that gave context and meaning to the 'deplorables' part. Just admit that even now you still didn't know the context, meaning and intent of Clinton's deplorable comment. Because it got cut and presented falsely in the media you follow.
Admitting it won't mean Clinton didn't blunder by giving the right wing media something to manipulate, of course. But it will mean that maybe with you and me coming to an understanding about the actual speech given, the political debate will be just a little more informed, and maybe we can build from there
Two, by her saying "half" - everyone will recognize that she's painting with a huge brush.
Uh... I think everyone should have had that figured out when Clinton started the comment with "You know, to just be grossly generalistic..."
She was trying to woo the #NeverTrumpers at a time that they were loud and enthusiatically against Trump... what she should've done is gone after those #NeverTrumpers w/o attacking the deplorable voters.
Which gets back to the point I've made a few times now - Clinton's campaign strategy was built around winning those voters. She put centrist Republicans in the convention, she run away from more progressive policies that might scare those folk away and so on. And in the end it won her basically stuff all. The right still convinced themselves she was a far left socialist, and the left saw enough evidence to convince themselves she was a corporate sell out.
That's the issue with triangulation in a partisan age. Nothing you do will woo the other side, and you risk losing part of your own base. Obama won in 2008 with a vote total Republicans can't match, and they did it without bringing any real number of defections from the Republicans, they just got their own base motivated.
This is simply campaign tactics.
Sure, it was a blunder to make a comment that could be easily manipulated, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pretend there wasn't a manipulation of the comment.
Just like in 2012 it was a mistake from Romney to withhold his taxes for so long in 2012, allowing for Democrats to put out a bunch of lies and innuendo. Recognising Romney made a blunder doesn't mean pretending that Reid's final claims were okay.
]
No seb. You don't get to say it was a manipulation when in fact she said it and the other half bit doesn't change that context.
She used a gross over-generalization that half of trump's supporters are deplorable.
It was as clear as Romney's 47% remarks or Cruz's 'NY Values' spiel.
Stop defending the indefensible.
Whembly, do you really think Clinton's "Deplorable" is more indefensible than Trump's "Grab em by the blank"?
Which candidate was referring to the other side's voters? There's your answer.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
As such, the strategy for Democrats is to make sure their base is motivated to get out and vote.
As the Strategy should ALWAYS be. Didn't Rove teach the D's anything?
The question is, what DOES motivate the base? I think Saunders and trump are closer to it than Clinton. I have a feeling Ellison is closer to it than Dean.
We shall see, but I also have a feeling the D leadership won't have it figured out in time for 2020.
Edit: Unrelated question. Any ideas how "Deplorables" managed to stick to Hilary while 'You Didn't Build That" and "Guns and God" didn't really stick to Obama electorally? What changed?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/08 17:55:26
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
feeder wrote: I agree it's a terrible idea. The alternative is whoever Trumppence puts forwards.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Fething deplorables and those who closed their eyes and got into bed with those deplorables really fethed your country.
There should be a mod alert about a Canadian insult a substantial portion of the United States.
Buds, you're one of the leading lights of sweeping generalizations on this board. Don't act all put out.
Besides, you voted for the stoner, remember? You're one of the good guys.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
~1.5k
