[QUOTE=Raidyr;51344287]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.
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.[/QUOTE]
You must have made a thousand posts in the last 48 hours about the same thing. I think it's time to just go to LMAO pics and chill out.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;51344183]News to me, I changed my registration from Republican to Democrat myself. Not switching parties in time isn't "disenfranchisement".
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.
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]
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]
Making people register almost a year before they have even heard of most of the candidates (NY) and before almost all of the debates is disenfranchisement and honestly if you don't think it is then I think it's hilarious.
The DNC was completely allowed to stop left leaning independents from participating in the democratic process but in the end they voted for Trump not her. Just look at the rust belt, a place where left leaning independants secured Sanders' several stunning victories and upsets. I wonder why those states who went blue in 2012 went red this time around....
Clinton was a pathetic candidate and the results of yesterday show this.
[QUOTE=TreasoN.avi;51344361]You must have made a thousand posts in the last 48 hours about the same thing. I think it's time to just go to LMAO pics and chill out.[/QUOTE]
Plot twist: making posts about politics on FP is how I chill out.
[QUOTE=Aztec;51344371]Making people register almost a year before they have even heard of most of the candidates (NY) and before almost all of the debates is disenfranchisement and honestly if you don't think it is then I think it's hilarious.[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of the problems with New Yorks voter registration, I just wouldn't classify it as disenfranchisement. The window to register should be much wider.
Out of interest, do you think Sanders could have gained the 3 million votes he needed from New York alone?
[QUOTE=Aztec;51344371]The DNC was completely allowed to stop left leaning independents from participating in the democratic process but in the end they voted for Trump not her. Just look at the rust belt, a place where left leaning independants secured Sanders' several stunning victories and upsets. I wonder why those states who went blue in 2012 went red this time around....[/QUOTE]
Outside of New York who's voter registration problems affected both parties and wasn't masterminded by the DNC, what other states did the DNC "completely stop left leaning independents" from participating in? If you were just trying to make the argument for open primaries then I'd probably agree with that as it seems the simplest way to allow for a true democratic vote. Where you are losing me is how it was targeted voter suppression by the DNC and not just failings of a flawed system that hurt Clinton less simply because she appeals more to Democrat stalwarts.
[QUOTE=Aztec;51344371]Clinton was a pathetic candidate and the results of yesterday show this.[/QUOTE]
I completely agree. It's why I voted Sanders.
[QUOTE=Paincake;51343844]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]
It's incredibly difficult to suffer "friends" or "family" that don't respect my inherent right as a person to live how she wishes, and those same people that call me and my LGBT friends perverts and sub-human.
I wish I was privileged enough to love everyone unconditionally, but I draw the line at people that want me to repress the harmless things that make life worth living, and at the people that would rather have me dead than autistic or queer or transgender.
After rewatching this for the fifth time, I realized a very good line he said in this:
[quote]Politics is a lot of horse racing, and horse race is gambling, and gambling is -- according to the bible -- a sin; because it itself is a poison. [b]Worrying about winning and not what the consequences of winning is.[/b][/quote]
[QUOTE=Wii60;51339771]I needed this.
I wish colbert would run, he knows how to unite.[/QUOTE]
you think the DNC would rig the primaries against him too?
The video's private for me.
I believe this is reupload:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZsQh2PRCOk[/media]
-snip- watch above
[QUOTE=TheJoey;51347557]you think the DNC would rig the primaries against him too?[/QUOTE]
The DNC never "rigged" anything. the only evidence points to them collaborating with media to kind of ignore bernie sanders and pretend the hillary is the clear choice, essentially to introduce bias to the news.
that would be nearly impossible to achieve against another media star, however
[QUOTE=da space core;51347697]The DNC never "rigged" anything. the only evidence points to them collaborating with media to kind of ignore bernie sanders and pretend the hillary is the clear choice, essentially to introduce bias to the news.
that would be nearly impossible to achieve against another media star, however[/QUOTE]
The only supposed evidence I've seen so far was a 30 minute meeting between someone at the DNC and someone at MSNBC. That particular meeting was about MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski’s claim that DWS should resign. I haven't seen an email that even hints at a plan to collude with a network to suppress Sanders coverage, let alone the entire mainstream media as the claim is made.
[editline]10th November 2016[/editline]
That's not to say that the media treated him with the respect a Democratic contender deserves, I just haven't seen any evidence that it was a targeted decision on marching orders from the DNC and not just an organic aspect of the press believing Sanders would be another Martin O'Malley.
[QUOTE=da space core;51347697]The DNC never "rigged" anything. the only evidence points to them collaborating with media to kind of ignore bernie sanders and pretend the hillary is the clear choice, essentially to introduce bias to the news.[/QUOTE]
hahaha ok
[url]http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/[/url]
[quote]Other emails show DNC staff in damage control over allegations from the Sanders campaign, when a report—corroborated by a Politico—revealed the DNC’s joint fundraising committee with the Clinton campaign was laundering money to the Clinton campaign instead of fundraising for down-ticket Democrats. Regardless of the fundraising tactics, because both major campaigns didn’t agree to use the joint fundraising committee super-PAC with the DNC, the DNC should have recused itself from participating with just the Clinton campaign.[/quote]
if by "collaborating with media to ignore him" you mean "work against him and his campaign to ensure Clinton received the nomination before even going to the media" then yes. that is rigging a campaign to make sure it doesn't succeed.
all of the evidence is in the link.
so i ask again. do you think stephen colbert would've gotten a fair cop against hillary clinton, or would they still rig the primaries to make sure only clinton succeeds? there was a very clear motivation from the start, and i wonder if having colbert come up as a democrat would change anything. i don't think they would've allowed another white man overshadow the predicted future that is a female presidency and another clinton in the white house.
[QUOTE=TheJoey;51349641]hahaha ok
[url]http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/[/url][/QUOTE]
So if I'm reading the [URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670"]Politico story[/URL] right, Clinton and the DNC set up a joint victory fund that raised money under the auspices that it would go down-ticket to state Democrats but the fund was actually controlled by a Clinton staffer who would transfer the money to the state parties then transfer it back to the DNC, who would use the money to essentially campaign for Clinton?
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/diEbrRV.png[/IMG]
I wonder how politics got so poisonous, it's not like you did anything to contribute to the perception of Trump as a literal nazi.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51355242]I wonder how politics got so poisonous, it's not like you did anything to contribute to the perception of Trump as a literal nazi.[/QUOTE]
He's a comedian, not a consulted professor in political theory. He makes jokes, ones that people find funny. What he did here in this video was reach beyond that in a way that united more than divided.
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51355242][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/diEbrRV.png[/IMG]
I wonder how politics got so poisonous, it's not like you did anything to contribute to the perception of Trump as a literal nazi.[/QUOTE]
mate there is literally nobody else on FP that posts as much politically incorrect humor as you, and you're going to whine about [I]this[/I]?
[QUOTE=Svinnik;51355242][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/diEbrRV.png[/IMG]
I wonder how politics got so poisonous, it's not like you did anything to contribute to the perception of Trump as a literal nazi.[/QUOTE]
So you're allowed to make fun of him for being "lol nazi" because you support him, but no one else can?
:hammered:
[editline]11th November 2016[/editline]
Also people make fun of him for "being a nazi" because of how hateful his policies are, not because they are "raging libertards"
[QUOTE=CAPT Opp4;51355488]He's a comedian, not a consulted professor in political theory. He makes jokes, ones that people find funny. What he did here in this video was reach beyond that in a way that united more than divided.[/QUOTE]
No. What he did here was trying to wash his hands of the political divide he knowingly helped create.
[QUOTE=Latex;51355616]No. What he did here was trying to wash his hands of the political divide he knowingly helped create.[/QUOTE]
Wait how'd he "knowingly create a political divide?"
This is some Alex Jones shit you're saying here.
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;51355622]Wait how'd he "knowingly create a political divide?"
This is some Alex Jones shit you're saying here.[/QUOTE]
Him and the rest of the mainstream media have with their hyberbolic political coverage created a political enviroment so toxic and polarizing that any reasonable discussion is damn near impossible.
He and everyone else in the media knew this would happen but they did it anyway for views and ratings.
So him to turning around now asking how it got this way and saying people should unite is just laughable.
[QUOTE=Latex;51355703]Him and the rest of the mainstream media have with their hyberbolic political coverage created a political enviroment so toxic and polarizing that any reasonable discussion is damn near impossible.
He and everyone else in the media knew this would happen but they did it anyway for views and ratings.[/QUOTE]
He did it because he thought he was acting dumb and stupid. He's a comedian, not a journalist. If you think that he's the latter you are woefully delusional.
I don't get how whenever someone criticizes your candidate you guys throw a massive fit about how its hyperbolic and that they're just lying.
[QUOTE=Latex;51355703]Him and the rest of the mainstream media have with their hyberbolic political coverage created a political enviroment so toxic and polarizing that any reasonable discussion is damn near impossible.
He and everyone else in the media knew this would happen but they did it anyway for views and ratings.
So him to turning around now asking how it got this way and saying people should unite is just laughable.[/QUOTE]
No
As much as there's a swathe of liberals guilty for over championing some issues and creating toxicity, both sides are part of that build up.
There was enough Trump supporters on this site alone who held some pretty fucked views about some particular issues who participated in creating that toxic element you speak of. Everyones guilty, but everyones trying to act like they're the saint.
No, we're all bad, we're all part of the problem we all need to chill the fuck out
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;51355717]He did it because he thought he was acting dumb and stupid. He's a comedian, not a journalist. If you think that he's the latter you are woefully delusional.
I don't get how whenever someone criticizes your candidate you guys throw a massive fit about how its hyperbolic and that they're just lying.[/QUOTE]
So he was doing it ironically, i don't see how that makes a difference.
And please don't call Trump 'my candidate', i have nothing but contempt for the man.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51355726]No
As much as there's a swathe of liberals guilty for over championing some issues and creating toxicity, both sides are part of that build up.
There was enough Trump supporters on this site alone who held some pretty fucked views about some particular issues who participated in creating that toxic element you speak of. Everyones guilty, but everyones trying to act like they're the saint.
No, we're all bad, we're all part of the problem we all need to chill the fuck out[/QUOTE]
Yes i know. I never said this was exlusive to one side.
[QUOTE=Latex;51355777]So he was doing it ironically, i don't see how that makes a difference.[/QUOTE]
So what you're saying is that we should never express our opinions because that would alienate people?
I hate the news media as much as the next guy, but for the last time, this is a comedy show, not a news outlet.
suppressing comedy won't reduce its influence
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;51355785]So what you're saying is that we should never express our opinions because that would alienate people?[/QUOTE]
No. You and Stephen can go ahead and express your opinions as much as you like.
[QUOTE=Latex;51355834]No. You and Stephen can go ahead and express your opinions as much as you like.[/QUOTE]
But you just said that him expressing it over the air is alienation.
[QUOTE=Lord of Boxes;51355843]But you just said that him expressing it over the air is alienation.[/QUOTE]
I don't really care about who is alianted by what. I just get annoyed when people who were actively taking part in it suddenly tries to pretend that they're above it.
[QUOTE=Latex;51355899]I don't really care about who is alianted by what. I just get annoyed when people who were actively taking part in it suddenly tries to pretend that they're above it.[/QUOTE]
He never tried to separate anyone. Stop telling yourself this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.