• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Rejecting words and actions which perpetrate, support or encourage white supremacists

Yes, absolutely. Hillary's campaign spent way too much time and effort painting Trump as a racist/misogynist/xenophobe. That was the equivalent of "red meat" for her liberal base. "Multi-cultural tofu"? Even if Trump really was as bad as the campaign made him out to be, the voters Hillary needed were not as concerned about those character issues. That did not sway them. The Democratic party can choose to learn from that and try a different approach for those voters, or they can choose to punt on those white voters.

FIFY, Let's try to watch those micro aggression's.
 
Hillary didn't talk enough about her plan for America. She focused too much on Trump's shenanigans.

I agree with this somewhat, but not wholly. She did spend time talking about her agenda and plan for America, but when the media and public are only paying attention to the shenanigans, what the fuck are you supposed to do? This is where Trump dominated the election and won - in keeping the eye off of agendas and plan details, and on incendiary, over-the-top comments to keep himself on the tongues of pundits and topping the click counts on the internet. He was the one with no agenda details beyond "ban Muslims, export Mexicans, build wall, tremendous job growth." That was the full depth of his policy proposals.

This is the failure of the media to keep focus on the truth and on substantive material, and the failure of Americans to demand more substance. He campaigned like a professional wrestler in his pre-match interview, and it fucking worked. Hillary is a wonk, she could go on for days about policy proposals. Nah, Americans don't want to hear that shit. Not enough Americans, anyway.
 
Last edited:
That article is so spot on.

I'm pretty sure the original author was using "white male supremacy" in a similar way as "the patriarchy" and arguing that Sanders words (as she interpreted them) served to reinforce the current state of white male dominance in our society and politics.

That is distinct from white supremacy, as the term is normally used, to refer to the belief that whites are inherently better than other races.

The author of the Atlantic article seems to be conflating the two and then downplaying the prevalence of white supremacy (in the latter sense) in our society. While the number of people who openly articulate their belief in white superiority and advocate for the preservation and expansion of white supremacy (in the former sense) is small, the number of people who harbor some belief in white superiority is larger than most of us would like to admit.
 
I agree with this somewhat, but not wholly. She did spend time talking about her agenda and plan for America, but when the media and public are only paying attention to the shenanigans, what the fuck are you supposed to do? This is where Trump dominated the election and won - in keeping the eye off of agendas and plan details, and on incendiary, over-the-top comments to keep himself on the tongues of pundits and topping the click counts on the internet. He was the one with no agenda details beyond "ban Muslims, export Mexicans, build wall, tremendous job growth." That was the full depth of his policy proposals.

This is the failure of the media to keep focus on the truth and on substantive material, and the failure of Americans to demand more substance. He campaigned like a professional wrestler in his pre-match interview, and it fucking worked. Hillary is a wonk, she could go on for days about policy proposals. Nah, Americans don't want to hear that shit. Not enough, anyway.

Dems just need to go observe a bunch of 5th grade class president elections and apply what they find on a national scale. That's about the level Trump ran his campaign on.
 
I'm pretty sure the original author was using "white male supremacy" in a similar way as "the patriarchy" and arguing that Sanders words (as she interpreted them) served to reinforce the current state of white male dominance in our society and politics.

That is distinct from white supremacy, as the term is normally used, to refer to the belief that whites are inherently better than other races.

The author of the Atlantic article seems to be conflating the two and then downplaying the prevalence of white supremacy (in the latter sense) in our society. While the number of people who openly articulate their belief in white superiority and advocate for the preservation and expansion of white supremacy (in the former sense) is small, the number of people who harbor some belief in white superiority is larger than most of us would like to admit.

I think Friesdorf is saying that comments like yours, while are academically important, are bewildering and alienating to 99% of people and ultimately unhelpful in a national conversaion
 
The difference between Bernie and Trump, was that Bernie wasn't promising to bring back manufacturing and fossil fuel jobs with trickle down economic theory and repealing EPA regulation

That is not the only difference, but ok.
 
That is not the only difference, but ok.
I meant regarding economic populism. Bernie and Trump both had the same outsider message of being against corporate/banking/political elites for the good of the common man. Of course Bernie's "Democratic socialism" was much more big government than Trump, but I don't remember Trump ever espousing a small government message.
 
Last edited:
Bernie would have had a better shot at correctly identifying Trump as an elite, though Trump would paint Bernie as a Washington insider. Probably an interesting election on some alternate timeline.
 
I agree with this somewhat, but not wholly. She did spend time talking about her agenda and plan for America, but when the media and public are only paying attention to the shenanigans, what the fuck are you supposed to do? This is where Trump dominated the election and won - in keeping the eye off of agendas and plan details, and on incendiary, over-the-top comments to keep himself on the tongues of pundits and topping the click counts on the internet. He was the one with no agenda details beyond "ban Muslims, export Mexicans, build wall, tremendous job growth." That was the full depth of his policy proposals.

This is the failure of the media to keep focus on the truth and on substantive material, and the failure of Americans to demand more substance. He campaigned like a professional wrestler in his pre-match interview, and it fucking worked. Hillary is a wonk, she could go on for days about policy proposals. Nah, Americans don't want to hear that shit. Not enough Americans, anyway.

She had the opportunity to talk to the American people at the debates. Largely what she told them was Trump is crazy and detailed policy positions that she (like most Dems) was not able to simplify into catchy soundbites.
 
I think Friesdorf is saying that comments like yours, while are academically important, are bewildering and alienating to 99% of people and ultimately unhelpful in a national conversaion

Thus the comparisons to Idiocracy.
 
Yeah as we saw, it was a war of words/cult of personality type election. Teflon Don lost every debate by intellectual/rhetorical standards and won them all by popular appeal. Bernie got people going in a way Hillary never did.

Nobody would have fucking cared what Bernie said with Ortega in the 1980s ffs.
 
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/02...t-establishment-is-now-advising-donald-trump/

On Friday, Trump announced the creation of a “Strategic and Policy Forum” that will serve to advise him on domestic economic matters. The list of advisers is a who’s-who of corporate elites.

He’s not the only one making a major turnaround; many of them had previously and enthusiastically supported his Democratic opponent.

1458228471898.cached.jpg


bsf4l cucked again
 
Bob 2 getting cucked so much he'd be walking funny if he ever peeled himself out of his mom's basement office chair.
 
Thus the comparisons to Idiocracy.
I disagree with this. I think the treatment of Bernie Sanders by loyal establishment Dems belies the schism in current American liberalism. Social justice progressivism has become so entrenched with neo-liberal corporate economics that any attempt to separate the two is seen as a rejection of social justice politics. Populism is a dirty word for some Democrats because it means focusing on a class inclusive economic agenda. It's how corporations advertise with rainbows and multi-cultural families, yet use off shore tax shelters and abusive labor practices overseas.
 
A North Carolina man was arrested Sunday after he walked into a popular pizza restaurant in Northwest Washington carrying an assault rifle and fired one or more shots, D.C. police said. The man told police he had come to the restaurant to “self-investigate” an election-related conspiracy theory involving Hillary Clinton that spread online during her presidential campaign.

The restaurant’s owner and employees were threatened on social media in the days before the election after fake news stories circulated claiming that then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her campaign chief were running a child sex ring from the restaurant’s backrooms. Even Michael Flynn, a retired general whom President-elect Trump has tapped to advise him on national security, shared stories about another anti-Clinton conspiracy theory involving pedophilia. None of them were true. But the fake stories and threats persisted, some even aimed at children of Comet Ping Pong employees and patrons. The restaurant’s owner was forced to contact the FBI, local police, Facebook and other social-media platforms in an effort to remove the articles.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-535pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.9acfa32b2b2a
 
A North Carolina man was arrested Sunday after he walked into a popular pizza restaurant in Northwest Washington carrying an assault rifle and fired one or more shots, D.C. police said. The man told police he had come to the restaurant to “self-investigate” an election-related conspiracy theory involving Hillary Clinton that spread online during her presidential campaign.

The restaurant’s owner and employees were threatened on social media in the days before the election after fake news stories circulated claiming that then-Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and her campaign chief were running a child sex ring from the restaurant’s backrooms. Even Michael Flynn, a retired general whom President-elect Trump has tapped to advise him on national security, shared stories about another anti-Clinton conspiracy theory involving pedophilia. None of them were true. But the fake stories and threats persisted, some even aimed at children of Comet Ping Pong employees and patrons. The restaurant’s owner was forced to contact the FBI, local police, Facebook and other social-media platforms in an effort to remove the articles.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-535pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.9acfa32b2b2a

I think they mean "terrorist" from NC.
 
Back
Top