• 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!

Who has a Wife or Daughter going to the Woman's March on Washington?

The problem here is the notion you need to concede other democrat positions to coddle to a small group of voters whose sole concern is jobs. They are selfish in that jobs for themselves is a singular factor that impacts only them. Why the fuck should society as a whole be concern with a minority of people and their inability to change with the times and benefit society by becoming slightly more educated and getting themselves plenty of available jobs. These selfish people basically say turn back the clock on individuals rights, fuck the environment, fuck the safety net, societal progress etc... as long as I have a job without putting in much effort.

This position was ignored by both republicans and democrats because it's a ridiculous position to have. Trump is a rejection of both parties through acknowledging these people. So while republicans may get some stuff they have always wanted they also can't be happy with huge infrastructure spending or trade wars, while democrats get a gutting of social progress. How did it all happen, because a group of selfish people hijacked the government for the singular purpose of they want jobs without concern for the consequence as long as they get theirs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ITK
jhmd2000 said:
I set realistic expectations for people who can't learn from taking a 300 EV loss to Donald Trump.
Click to expand...

do you just not comprehend new things or just can't see that this very discussion (if you can call it that) is evidence of 'learning from taking a loss from DJT"?
 
The march was about outsiders railing against the establishment. Doesn't get more lesson learning than that !
 
ImTheCaptain said:
do you just not comprehend new things or just can't see that this very discussion (if you can call it that) is evidence of 'learning from taking a loss from DJT"?
Click to expand...

I see a lot of discussion, precious little learning on the part of the vanquished. What about these marches appeal to the voters you lost?

The answer is nothing at all. The operating principle seems to be "We just need to do what we were doing more." Confirmation bias aside, what do the people who disagree with you think about that? Did you not think they understood your shtick in the last 18 months of wall-to-wall news coverage of the election? No, they understood, they just aren't buying it.
 
Last edited:
Maybe educate us on the lessons learned by the GOP in 2009 that led to its remarkable resurgence over the past 8 years.

Or maybe explain how the GOP's 2012 post-mortem paved the way for changes in GOP policy and platform in 2016.
 
332ba3736d753e07db9154ba9cf8e09b.jpg
 
DeaconSig said:
Maybe educate us on the lessons learned by the GOP in 2009 that led to its remarkable resurgence over the past 8 years.

Or maybe explain how the GOP's 2012 post-mortem paved the way for changes in GOP policy and platform in 2016.
Click to expand...

They didn't have one. Trump did. Trump appealed to the disaffected voters that both parties forgot about, and flipped enough rust belt states to do it. He beat the GOP in the Spring and the Dems in the Fall.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I see a lot of discussion, precious little learning on the part of the vanquished. What about these marches appeal to the voters you lost?
Click to expand...

Probably nothing. That wasn't the point. The point was to show all the people that voted against Trump that the resistance is strong and will no go quietly into the night, to show Trump, along with all the spineless salivating Pubs in congress, the same thing, and to begin the process of organizing for 2018.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I see a lot of discussion, precious little learning on the part of the vanquished. What about these marches appeal to the voters you lost?
Click to expand...

because in real life learning involves processing information and discussing things. that's how people and institutions learn.
 
ThinkingWithMyDeac said:
The problem here is the notion you need to concede other democrat positions to coddle to a small group of voters whose sole concern is jobs... because a group of selfish people hijacked the government for the singular purpose of they want jobs without concern for the consequence as long as they get theirs.
Click to expand...

Republicans are furiously trying to talk themselves (and us) into believing that a populist pro-jobs platform must be socially conservative, because they are trying to create a schism in the Democratic party. It's not true. The Democratic party doesn't need to lose it's social justice platform to reach out to those WWC voters, it just has to realize that those voters have different priorities they are looking for in a campaign.
 
birdman said:
Probably nothing. That wasn't the point. The point was to show all the people that voted against Trump that the resistance is strong and will no go quietly into the night, to show Trump, along with all the spineless salivating Pubs in congress, the same thing, and to begin the process of organizing for 2018.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
birdman said:
Probably nothing. That wasn't the point. The point was to show all the people that voted against Trump that the resistance is strong and will no go quietly into the night, to show Trump, along with all the spineless salivating Pubs in congress, the same thing, and to begin the process of organizing for 2018.
Click to expand...

I did read some interesting articles about Trump voters who marched.

Some had regrets. Others were fine with their vote but want to make sure women are heard.
 
jhmd2000 said:
Not sure how this could be serious. The overarching lesson of 2016 is nobody gives a crap what you think you said, it matters what people actually hear. The people who got turned off by what you believe are "racial and gender justice" message aren't going to be moved by an even bigger "racial and gender justice" demonstration.
Click to expand...

Hmph, the lesson I got from this election was that rust belt voters want to be told in un-PC terms that their problems are the fault of Chinese and Mexican workers, and that they are going to get their jobs in the coal mines and air conditioner plants back. They want to, as you say, "hear" this.

It is a lie, of course, but they do not want to hear the hard facts that the dems (albeit poorly) have been saying for years: trickle-down is a con, we need massive gov investment in skills training for the jobs-of-the-future.

Apparently winning is more important than truth, according to you.
 
I just think there's far too much overreaction to what actually occurred on Election Day because the end result was Donald is now the president. Again, it's not like there was an overwhelming rejection of the democrat message. Democrats got more senate votes than Republicans and got more votes for president than Republicans. I think it's worth it to explore what you can do better in hindsight, but wholeheartedly reject the notion that there's a fundamental issue with the progressive platform that renders it ineffective in the current political setup.
 
Also, the only two candidates who ran heavily on a sex/gender type issue in NC - which went to Donald - got voted out. Not really a rejection of "racial and gender" demonstrations.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
I just think there's far too much overreaction to what actually occurred on Election Day because the end result was Donald is now the president. Again, it's not like there was an overwhelming rejection of the democrat message. Democrats got more senate votes than Republicans and got more votes for president than Republicans. I think it's worth it to explore what you can do better in hindsight, but wholeheartedly reject the notion that there's a fundamental issue with the progressive platform that renders it ineffective in the current political setup.
Click to expand...

Of course.

this is all jhmd has to cling to though. The notion that the dems aren't hearing these people is preposterous - the platform is in their best interest. Hiring a liar to tell them what they want to hear and then double-down on policy that has never benefited these people is an abomination.

He knows that
 
WakeandBake said:
Of course.

this is all jhmd has to cling to though. The notion that the dems aren't hearing these people is preposterous - the platform is in their best interest. Hiring a liar to tell them what they want to hear and then double-down on policy that has never benefited these people is an abomination.

He knows that
Click to expand...

Yeah he really just knows that people get riled up by his passive-aggressive trolling where he asserts plausible deniability in the event that Donald is a colossal failure even though it's evident he preferred Donald to Hillary in a one-off situation/comparison. The only issue that seems to get him irked is the (correct) assertion that Donald is a Republican.

I don't know what's worse, losing to Donald or losing your party because Donald literally co-opted it and is transforming the message from conservatism to his specific brand of self-centric nationalism/populism.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Yeah he really just knows that people get riled up by his passive-aggressive trolling where he asserts plausible deniability in the event that Donald is a colossal failure even though it's evident he preferred Donald to Hillary in a one-off situation/comparison. The only issue that seems to get him irked is the (correct) assertion that Donald is a Republican.

I don't know what's worse, losing to Donald or losing your party because Donald literally co-opted it and is transforming the message from conservatism to his specific brand of self-centric nationalism/populism.
Click to expand...

A: Losing to Donald when you were sure you were going to wipe the floor with him. You're always sure.
 
My read of this thread is that people would rather have their party win even if it means changing their fundamental viewpoint and moral code.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top