[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m2valF3s84[/media]
Apologies if late.
please run in 2020
I needed this.
I wish colbert would run, he knows how to unite.
Sobering words we should all take to heart. One of the most important things to do now (and one of Trumps most immediate jobs) is to heal this great divide between Democrats and Republicans this ugly, ugly election has created
[QUOTE=xeo xeo;51339774]Sobering words we should all take to heart. One of the most important things to do now (and one of Trumps most immediate jobs) is to heal this great divide between Democrats and Republicans this ugly, ugly election has created[/QUOTE]
It's honestly scary how aggressive both sides have been and still are, in some cases, this election.
It's a shame either side had to win this one considering now we'll almost certainly have to go through this again in ~4 years time.
Finaly someone speaking sense on the TV.
Wow, hearing the results absolutely killed Colbert's spirit. I've watched all his clips online the past few days and he was always happy and upbeat that Trump would lose. But here, he was just absolutely devastated to believe that we actually elected one of the most unstable person for presidency. And so am I.
I didn't see the live, but were all the swears he said uncensored? That's the most time in any single episode he's had to be bleeped.
[QUOTE=Cone;51339674]please run in 2020[/QUOTE]
Colbert/Stewart 2020
[QUOTE=AnnieOakley;51340117]Colbert/Stewart 2020[/QUOTE]
i really want to know how stewart is handling this.
i just noah to give the show back to him for one day, just to see him react
[QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;51340995]i really want to know how stewart is handling this.
i just noah to give the show back to him for one day, just to see him react[/QUOTE]
I want to see Stewart come back for a guest appearance [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNiqpBNE9ik]like he did after the RNC[/url] and speak his thoughts about a Trump presidency
Well there's a live Colbert show tonight, so maybe he'll make an appearance there.
i think this year has been terrible for political comedy. trump is low hanging fruit, hillary is too bland to get good jokes from
at the very least, this election puts daily show-esque presenters (and the daily show itself) in the same underdog position they were in during the bush presidency, which is when we got some of their best material
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51341575]Not gonna happen at this rate. The Dems have proven they have no moral boundaries, read that pied piper email. They wanted this divide.[/QUOTE]
And the republicans want it just as much.
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51341575]Not gonna happen at this rate. The Dems have proven they have no moral boundaries, read that pied piper email. They wanted this divide.[/QUOTE]
The Democratic leadership and the average citizen who identify as a Democrat in terms of ideology are two different things.
i like how his band was like "shit how does my country tis of thee go"
[QUOTE=Vodkavia;51342618]No they really didn't. The Republican game plan for 2016 (which trump derailed) was to, on a superficial level become more inclusive and alienate racial minorities less in reaction to Romney's loss in the previous election.
They didn't do a good job, but they also didn't callously gamble the white house by trying to force the left to the extreme in order to extort repubs into voting for a preselected candidate.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter what either campaign wanted in terms of division- the end result here is that there is a very large and angry split between democrats and republicans as a result of the nature of this election. To blame any single entity for the division of an entire country's voting base is naive and narrowsighted. We must stop blaming one another for the cause of this problem, instead and take action to mend it.
We desperately need to get something done.
Don't even glance at the comments. Jesus Christ.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;51341653]The Democratic leadership and the average citizen who identify as a Democrat in terms of ideology are two different things.[/QUOTE]
But they both wanted Clinton.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51343073]But they both wanted Clinton.[/QUOTE]
Keep telling yourself that.
[QUOTE=Aztec;51343079]Keep telling yourself that.[/QUOTE]
She got 3 million more votes than Sanders did and had a 12 point gap. It's indisputable that average Citizen Democrat favored Clinton
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51343181]She got 3 million more votes than Sanders did and had a 12 point gap. It's indisputable that average Citizen Democrat favored Clinton[/QUOTE]
She lost to the weakest candidate that has ever run for president. If you need to tell yourself the left wanted her go ahead though.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51343181]She got 3 million more votes than Sanders did and had a 12 point gap. It's indisputable that average Citizen Democrat favored Clinton[/QUOTE]
I personally think it's less the Left wanted her, and more the Left wanted [B]someone[/B] they believed could win out against the Right - and the Left simply didn't have faith in Sanders to be able to do that. Clinton was establishment, with resources and name recognition. Sanders didn't have any of those things.
Not to mention friends in high places.
[QUOTE=Aztec;51343252]She lost to the weakest candidate that has ever run for president. If you need to tell yourself the left wanted her go ahead though.[/QUOTE]
Okay but we were talking about Democrats and you just invoked "the left". I didn't claim that "the left" wanted her I claimed that Democrats wanted her which is objectively, indisputably a fact. Regardless of whether she won or lost the general, Democrats chose her over Sanders. Not just the DNC, not just the party leadership, but average citizen democrats. If you can't recognize this and work to fix it by 2020 and insist on yelling at the vague evil shadowmasters of the DNC then nothing will be gained.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51343417]Okay but we were talking about Democrats and you just invoked "the left". I didn't claim that "the left" wanted her I claimed that Democrats wanted her which is objectively, indisputably a fact. Regardless of whether she won or lost the general, Democrats chose her over Sanders. Not just the DNC, not just the party leadership, but average citizen democrats. If you can't recognize this and work to fix it by 2020 and insist on yelling at the vague evil shadowmasters of the DNC then nothing will be gained.[/QUOTE]
You narrowed the definition not me. You responded to a post that stated "identify as democrat" which let's be honest here, hillary did no favors for new and young dems coming into the party during the primary and in many cases due to DNC rules they weren't even allowed to join the party in time to vote. So go figure they were disenfrachised.
the DNC are the ones that need to start talking notes not me. Hillary's campaign chose to label me a BernieBro instead of trying to incorporate me into their campaign.
And yeah I'm going to use the terms hillary's campaign and the DNC pretty fluidly given how much they tried to push the scale down for her.
-snip-
My facebook feed has just been flooded with people ready to kick America off the stage, and anyone trying to spread this kind of message of love and positivity are just getting a big fat fuck you.
I don't want to hate anyone, especially people who I call my friends just because they share different values than I do.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51343417]Okay but we were talking about Democrats and you just invoked "the left". I didn't claim that "the left" wanted her I claimed that Democrats wanted her which is objectively, indisputably a fact. Regardless of whether she won or lost the general, Democrats chose her over Sanders. Not just the DNC, not just the party leadership, but average citizen democrats. If you can't recognize this and work to fix it by 2020 and insist on yelling at the vague evil shadowmasters of the DNC then nothing will be gained.[/QUOTE]
There is an absolute yawning gap between the democrats on the ground and the democrats in the principal white house sphere, and the closer you get to the center of that sphere, the more like your typical PAC asshole they become. [URL="https://www.amazon.com/This-Town-Parties-Funeral-Plus-Americas/dp/0399170685"]There's also nothing vague about who they are or what they do.[/URL]
But by all means keep plugging that narrative as long as it makes you feel better about getting owned by one of the most reprehensible people in current political history.
[QUOTE=Aztec;51343442]and in many cases due to DNC rules they weren't even allowed to join the party in time to vote. So go figure they were disenfrachised.[/QUOTE]
News to me, I changed my registration from Republican to Democrat myself. Not switching parties in time isn't "disenfranchisement".
[QUOTE=Aztec;51343442]You narrowed the definition not me. You responded to a post that stated "identify as democrat" which let's be honest here, hillary did no favors for new and young dems coming into the party during the primary[/QUOTE]
If I narrowed the definition you went out to left field with it by bringing up "the left" when I never said that. This is a small but critically important detail because one of the reasons Hillary won the nomination was that she was seen as more moderate than Sanders, which should tell you that "people who identify as Democrats" aren't as far left as you think they are. This is exactly the point I'm trying to get across; that you are overestimating the size of "the left" as opposed to the more moderate, centrist, third-way ideas that are actually the Democratic party. As for the DNC.
[QUOTE=Aztec;51343442]the DNC are the ones that need to start talking notes not me. Hillary's campaign chose to label me a BernieBro instead of trying to incorporate me into their campaign.
And yeah I'm going to use the terms hillary's campaign and the DNC pretty fluidly given how much they tried to push the scale down for her.[/QUOTE]
This leads you to blame outside factors for Sanders (and eventually, passing the buck of irresponsibility from Trump supporters to Clinton supporters) and the DNC is a perfect target for an anti-establishment point of view. To support this allegation that it had to have been because of the DNC and not because out of 10 democrats only 4 voted for Sanders, so you start finding things to back this up. Oh shit, the DNC emails leaked...and there is nothing there. Low level staffers making questionable suggestions that were never acted upon and the best thing we have for all the purported "media conclusion" is a 30 minute meeting with the head of MSNBC.
Here is the facts of the Democratic primary, short and sweet: Sanders got farther than anyone expected him to. Much farther. The fact that he had no name recognition while competing against the person second only to Obama himself in Democratic circles meant that the media did not take him seriously during the opening days of his campaign. He didn't have the same level of financial assistance from Super PACs that Trump and Clinton enjoyed. And he didn't receive the same sort of collaboration with the DNC that Clinton did. Despite this he still won over 40% of the popular vote as an "outsider" Independent in a party primary. Which is actually unprecedented. It was an incredible run. And on top of all of it, from the beginning, he knew it was an uphill race. He knew he wasn't going to enjoy the type of support Clinton would have as the Democratic darling for over 20 years. But when he lost, he conceded with grace and did the one thing anyone who had been following Sanders for a long time would have guessed: He endorsed Clinton. Then he spent his time, money, and effort stumping for her on the campaign trail. But it wasn't enough. The hardliners in "the left" couldn't compromise. They couldn't agree to 90% now and 93% by 2020 and maybe even 95% by 2024. If they weren't going to get their candidate then they were going to get their "revenge". So now we have President Trump and you are going to lecture us who supported Sanders well before he ran for president and supported his decision to vote for Clinton in the general.
I'm willing to the nature of the media did Sanders no favors and that the DNC didn't treat him as a genuine candidate but this historical revisionism and ignorance as to who your allies [I]actually are[/I] is going to come back and bite your "left" in the ass come 2020 and there still isn't a progressive ground game amongst the Democrats.
[editline]9th November 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=27X;51344112]There is an absolute yawning gap between the democrats on the ground and the democrats in the principal white house sphere, and the closer you get to the center of that sphere, the more like your typical PAC asshole they become. [URL="https://www.amazon.com/This-Town-Parties-Funeral-Plus-Americas/dp/0399170685"]There's also nothing vague about who they are or what they do.[/URL]
But by all means keep plugging that narrative as long as it makes you feel better about getting owned by one of the most reprehensible people in current political history.[/QUOTE]
I'm not the one with a narrative here, it's you and Aztec who are somehow convinced that they know the Democratic voter but are seemingly incapable of understand the hows, whos, or whys of Clinton winning the nomination by a huge margin.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51343073]But they both wanted Clinton.[/QUOTE]
lol, it's so amazing to see that even now after all the fallout you're still clinging to this notion that Clinton was the people's choice. Even after your moronic, unrelenting party politics brought us a Trump presidency, you just cannot admit to yourself that you supported an artificial candidate who was chosen as nominee thanks to a rigged primary and propaganda campaign that the entire Democratic party and mainstream media were implicated in. You're a joke and so is anyone else who continues to deny that the Democrats threw the election by imposing their will upon the people.
[QUOTE=srobins;51344246]lol, it's so amazing to see that even now after all the fallout you're still clinging to this notion that Clinton was the people's choice. [/QUOTE]
This is Trump levels of delusion. I'm not clinging to the notion that Clinton was the peoples choice. I'm showing you evidence in poll numbers taken during the primary that Clinton was the peoples choice. By 3 million people. Which is a 12 point margin.
Maybe 3 million Democrats aren't fucking retarded zombies who give in to any amount of media coverage. Maybe 3 million Democrats chose Clinton because she was the biggest name in the party other than the president. Maybe it's because her more centrist beliefs matched up with what a Democratic voter actually is in 2016, as opposed to the progressive social democrat that you wish they were.
Or maybe it was because it was a rigged primary (that you have never proven) and the fault of a propaganda campaign (that was never proven) by the mainstream media (the head of one company had a 30 minute meeting with someone at the DNC and it wasn't even about Sanders) and the answer is to make really angry posts on the internet instead of asking your fellow Democrats "Why?". Fuck it, looking into the reasons why my candidate actually lost might be uncomfortable and awkward. Lets just take the most benign of narratives ("The media didn't take Sanders as a serious candidate because he was an outsider") and HYPERCHARGE IT into a propaganda campaign that every Democrat and every media outlet was a part of. Because if you don't get your way, the system is rigged. You deserve Trump, truly.
[QUOTE=srobins;51344246]Even after your moronic, unrelenting party politics brought us a Trump presidency, you just cannot admit to yourself that you supported an artificial candidate who was chosen as nominee thanks to a rigged primary and propaganda campaign that the entire Democratic party and mainstream media were implicated in. You're a joke and so is anyone else who continues to deny that the Democrats threw the election by imposing their will upon the people.[/QUOTE]
I contributed to the possibility of a Sanders presidency far more than you did whining on Facepunch and blaming people on the left who were willing to compromise as Sanders wanted.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.