Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401
Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!
2017-05-02, 5:51 PM #1721
Originally posted by Eversor:
It's unfair to call those comments cult-like. They attribute to her a level of decency and integrity that I doubt she has. But there seems to be a double standard. Many leftists who do criticize HRC don't criticize Obama's supporters for having an irrational fondness for their guy, even though his supporters express a similar personal attachment him. Perhaps the only difference is leftists think he's more deserving of it than Hillary.

or maybe you're SEXIST!! :hist101::neckbeard:


That's actually true, I don't really get the whole Bidenbro meme and excessive love for Obama, but I can't deny its existence.
2017-05-02, 5:53 PM #1722
Originally posted by Reid:
The entire shtick is that Bernie is the candidate for crypto-white-nationalists on the left. This is because they think his struggle entirely ignores PoC, women and other disadvantaged people. And since he drew support from Clinton, he was accidentally supporting Trump.

Trump quoted Bernie in a speech, which makes Bernie Hitler-lite.

So, autistic screeching*.

* not that there's nothing to the idea that there's a sort of "brocialism" which can be kinda racist, but this **** is just ridiculous


The TL;DR of it is that Bernie Sanders wanted to frame the struggles of women and minorities in terms of economic issues, i.e. as actual ****ing actionable problems, rather than bread and circuses social identity politic talking points that the government can dance around for 100 ****ing years without doing any actual work to rectify.

Kinda like, you know, gay marriage, before millennials and the Supreme Court made up Clinton's mind for her.
2017-05-02, 5:59 PM #1723
Originally posted by Eversor:
It's unfair to call those comments cult-like. They attribute to her a level of decency and integrity that I doubt she has. But there seems to be a double standard. Many leftists who do criticize HRC don't criticize Obama's supporters for having an irrational fondness for their guy, even though his supporters express a similar personal attachment him. Perhaps the only difference is leftists think he's more deserving of it than Hillary.

or maybe you're SEXIST!! :hist101::neckbeard:


Maybe what people don't remember is that Obama originally ran as an anti-establishment "hope" candidate against insidiest-of-insiders Clinton and McCain, and despite governing pretty much exactly the way either of them would have, he never fully shook off that anti-establishment image.

Biden memes, though. Dude has a sad story and a battery of goofy mannerisms. What more do you want, really?
2017-05-02, 6:22 PM #1724
Devout Amiga worshippers, who would so amusingly drop $3K on an AmigaONE X1000, actually get my sympathy, even with their sad devotion to that ancient religion, which has not helped conjure up the stolen home computer market.

As for "stolen" elections, well, to the extent that there ever was a cult around HRC beyond the presumption of being the "anti-Trump", I really hope that these die-hard supporters become as obscure as Amiga users, the minute a politician comes around who has half as much of the charisma that Obama needed to scoop her.

Which is what I totally expect to happen, because really, politicians with the charisma of a wet rag have rather shorter nostalgic staying power than electronic entertainment devices from our childhood.
2017-05-02, 9:07 PM #1725
Originally posted by Jon`C:
The TL;DR of it is that Bernie Sanders wanted to frame the struggles of women and minorities in terms of economic issues, i.e. as actual ****ing actionable problems, rather than bread and circuses social identity politic talking points that the government can dance around for 100 ****ing years without doing any actual work to rectify.


And the irony of it is, is that the people who hate Sanders the most want to make economics into social identity politics, so that being a capitalist is the core of your identity and anything useful becomes in-actionable because it would conflict with your self image. And so, in two solid punches, almost the entire nation is ideologically possessed and locked into shouting matches.

EDIT:When I started writing this it started out as a joke but I'm pretty ripped off my **** so by the end i forgot and it turned into ****ty social commentary sorry
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2017-05-02, 9:38 PM #1726
One of these days, I will wake up to the realization that all of my 'serious' online conversations were with people who were either high or trolling.
2017-05-02, 11:04 PM #1727
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
One of these days, I will wake up to the realization that all of my 'serious' online conversations were with people who were either high or trolling.


Today could be that day if you too become ripped off your ****.
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2017-05-02, 11:31 PM #1728
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
One of these days, I will wake up to the realization that all of my 'serious' online conversations were with people who were either high or trolling.


A decent amount of my posts were influnced by alcohol. Like I am right now. Eyo.

Originally posted by Jon`C:
The TL;DR of it is that Bernie Sanders wanted to frame the struggles of women and minorities in terms of economic issues, i.e. as actual ****ing actionable problems, rather than bread and circuses social identity politic talking points that the government can dance around for 100 ****ing years without doing any actual work to rectify.

Kinda like, you know, gay marriage, before millennials and the Supreme Court made up Clinton's mind for her.


Anyone else watch the video where Clinton announces she does not support gay marriage? In 2001 or something, presumably because polling suggested it was still unpopular.

Hail satanistics.
2017-05-03, 2:27 AM #1729
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Maybe what people don't remember is that Obama originally ran as an anti-establishment "hope" candidate against insidiest-of-insiders Clinton and McCain, and despite governing pretty much exactly the way either of them would have, he never fully shook off that anti-establishment image.


That could be. Another thing is what the fault lines were that split the outsider and the insider Democratic candidates in 2008 vs in 2016. It's true that in both 2008 and 2016, the outsider ran as an idealist who advocated change untempered by realistic expectations, while the insider ran as a hard-headed pragmatist whose goals were supposedly more restrained and grounded because of her experience. In that respect, they seem pretty similar. (Obama also possessed "celebrity", while Bernie had managed to create a "movement".)

But there were also some crucial differences. In 2008, an anti-elite (especially, anti-financial elite), anti-corporatist message didn't also define the attraction to the outsider candidate in the same way it did in 2016. In other words, the dividing line between Obama and Hillary wasn't between leftists and left-of-center liberals, in the way it was between Bernie and Hillary in 2016. In 2008, Obama wanted to expand the role of government and provide more robust public services than HRC. Once he was president, he governed as a corporatist. But he wasn't a hypocrite, because anti-corporatism had never really been a large part of his message.

When Obama ran in 2008, it was still anathema even for a Democrat to talk about seriously about income inequality (one of the big achievements of Occupy Wall Street was to make discourse about income inequality permissible on the left). But by 2016, a large enough portion of the democratic primary electorate had mobilized around the issue that a candidate who ran on it could pose a serious threat to the favored Democratic candidate.

TL;DR: HRC is criticized so much more than Obama because Hillary ran against a leftist, and Obama didn't. There was no candidate to the left of Obama who had a serious chance of beating him. And since Obama didn't have to defend himself from a genuine leftist candidate, it wasn't in the interest of a significant number of people on the left to defame him. That's not true for Hillary. The contempt so many have for her is largely a result of an especially divisive Democratic primary, with Democrats divided along ideological lines in a way they weren't in 2008.
former entrepreneur
2017-05-03, 2:29 AM #1730
I also think that it matters that HRC has been widely criticized (and has even inspired ire) for a long, long time -- even when her husband was running for president in 1992 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-namImCszCk). Being in the public eye for decades and having had a stinky reputation for years and years is a difficult thing to overcome. In 2008, it was seen as a significant liability, that made voting for Obama rather than Clinton appear to be a strategic choice for some: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3DeCLPwxXI. In 2016, critics of HRC on both the left and the right had a long history of defamation to draw on. Not to mention, she did things that made her especially susceptible to the leftist critique (e.g., the speeches to the financial industry).

Also, this is some cold **** from May 2008: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90864878

Quote:
Sen. Hillary Clinton pointed to the 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason she should stay in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. These are thoughts better not articulated, lest they have an effect on some disordered mind.
former entrepreneur
2017-05-03, 2:32 AM #1731
Originally posted by Reid:
Anyone else watch the video where Clinton announces she does not support gay marriage? In 2001 or something, presumably because polling suggested it was still unpopular.


Yet another double standard. Obama didn't support gay marriage until 2012.
former entrepreneur
2017-05-03, 3:04 AM #1732
Originally posted by Reid:
Anyone else watch the video where Clinton announces she does not support gay marriage? In 2001 or something, presumably because polling suggested it was still unpopular.


One of the really impressive things about Bernie is that he's had the same beliefs on social and economic issues for decades. He was really ahead of the curve. In the 2000s, and especially in the early 2000s, nobody of stature was talking about marriage equality -- except maybe Dennis Kucinich, who, on the whole, was taken about as seriously as Ralph Nader was. And, after the 2000 election, he was likely despised as much as Ralph Nader was, because he was seen as being similar to Nader: he was who many leftists would vote for if they felt entitled to ignore the practical costs of voting for a third party candidate and vote their conscience. In 2000, that cost was very high: Nader was seen by many as responsible for costing Gore the election. There was a certain degree of stigma associated with "voting your conscience" after 2000. (Another one of Bernie's achievements was removing the stigma of voting for a leftist candidate, or even, to be a leftist candidate who appeared to have a chance of winning.)

But the Democratic party has now moved further to the left, and, in doing so, it's basically caught up with Bernie's progressiveness -- at least as far as social issues go. Social liberals these days are incredibly intolerant of any views on social issues that aren't as "progressive" as their own, and they've quickly naturalized/normalized their beliefs (that is, they've succeeded in marking views that disagree with their own as "offensive"). Since Bernie was so far ahead of the curve, when social liberals look at Bernie's past, they see someone whose views are basically the same as their own. But when they look at almost any other politician, they'll see "regressive" or "backwards" beliefs, just because those were the views democrats ran on before 2012 and 2016.

If I could magically decide who was and who wasn't allowed to run for the Democratic nomination in 2020, I wouldn't let anyone run if they ran for national office/governor before 2012. They -- like Hillary -- would have too many skeletons in their closet, too much fodder for YouTube videos, just because they will have expressed views that were normative in the 2000s, before polarization intensified.
former entrepreneur
2017-05-03, 5:59 AM #1733
Going back to the question, "why wasn't Obama criticized as much as HRC even though they were both corporatists": 2012 also matters. Obama succeeded in casting himself as a defender of the little guy, and of labor, against his opponent, whom he successfully associated with fat cats, and with capital, because of all Romney's ridiculous gaffes. And for Obama to maintain that position, he didn't have to cast himself as a democratic socialist in the manner of Bernie. He only had to uphold the Democratic status quo against the Republican party's typical small government, anti-entitlement spending, pro-privatization, anti-regulation, pro-Citizens United, "corporations are people", "I love big bird", "47% won't vote for me", blah blah blah blah line. Obama may have paid at most occasional lip service to Occupy Wall Street and to its aftermath. But if you cared about income inequality, Obama was as good as you were going to get. It wasn't really in anyone's interest to attack him from the left.
former entrepreneur
2017-05-03, 7:25 AM #1734
Originally posted by Krokodile:
Why do those HRC supporters say Bernie supporters are misogynistic? I hope their only reason is not that Bernie supporters didn't vote for the woman. Or maybe I hope it is, because if they have some other reason, it may well be even dumber.


There was also all this bull****: https://newrepublic.com/minutes/129335/feminist-gloria-steinem-says-young-women-support-bernie-want-attention-boys

That is, the Clinton campaign trying to guilt young women into voting for her. Which is to say: rallying people around HRC based on identity/feminism and stigma (something like: Bernie supporters are men, which means they're bad, and women who support Bernie are sex-frenzied sellouts to their tribe).
former entrepreneur
2017-05-03, 11:05 AM #1735
The problem with HRC has been known as long as JK has been out. She is pretty much the flesh incarnate of Rorty's critique of the 'new left', that he wrote about in his 1997 book, Achieving Our Country.

TL;DR: Following the end of the Vietnam war, gender studies classrooms somehow convinced the left that their fake cultural Marxist sophistry was more important than working with unions who might (gasp) be predominantly white and male.

It was a dumb idea then, and after 20 years of repeating the same mistake, it is still a dumb idea, and if you search this thread somewhere in the first 10 pages, you will even find that I quoted Rorty pretty much predicting the rise of a Trump when the white working class just completely loses patience with being ignored and insulted, and throws in with orange Hitler.
2017-05-03, 1:03 PM #1736
Originally posted by Reverend Jones:
The problem with HRC has been known as long as JK has been out. She is pretty much the flesh incarnate of Rorty's critique of the 'new left', that he wrote about in his 1997 book, Achieving Our Country.

TL;DR: Following the end of the Vietnam war, gender studies classrooms somehow convinced the left that their fake cultural Marxist sophistry was more important than working with unions who might (gasp) be predominantly white and male.

It was a dumb idea then, and after 20 years of repeating the same mistake, it is still a dumb idea, and if you search this thread somewhere in the first 10 pages, you will even find that I quoted Rorty pretty much predicting the rise of a Trump when the white working class just completely loses patience with being ignored and insulted, and throws in with orange Hitler.


That seems like a totally fair analysis of where the left is these days. And I'll admit that Clinton adopted social liberalism (to borrow Douthat's term for it), too, in a way that even Obama didn't (and, further, in a way that Obama didn't have to, since he didn't have to work nearly as hard Clinton to convince African-Americans to vote for him.) But she's not the embodiment of it. It's much bigger than she is.

Still, it's amusing just how entangled social liberalism is with a pro-corporate message. The Pepsi commercial for some reason was treated as a massive scandal. But the shamelessness with which corporations and media companies have appealed to the ideology of social liberalism to sell their products and to Netflix specials is so widespread it's stunning that more people aren't attuned to it.

Also, it's notable how it serves the interest of corporations. Convince white college graduates who start their careers providing free labor in the form of unpaid internships (despite having massive debt from college, they're told they should feel "lucky" to have their internship) that they're "privileged", and that they're actually part of the dominant class, whose mastery of society pits them in a zero-sum conflict against minorities? And teach them to feel guilty for "exploiting" others, while they get exploited? Sure, no way that that serves the interests of the billionaire class.
former entrepreneur
2017-05-03, 1:07 PM #1737
You do know, uh, that cultural Marxism, aka cultural Bolshevism, is a term the Nazis used to describe the made-up efforts of Jews and communists to subvert German culture, right?

It's probably best to not use that term, unless you want to be associated with the alt-right.
2017-05-03, 1:32 PM #1738
Whoops, that's not so great. Let's instead call that political movement the "feminists who repurposed Marxist language for identity politics tactics" crowd you'll find at universities.

I only said they were cultural since they don't address economic issues in a uniform and culturally neutral way, thus distinguishing them from actual Marxists (and for other reasons perhaps from actual feminists for that matter) but I better avoid that term, so thanks.
2017-05-03, 1:33 PM #1739
"what libtard cucks say"
former entrepreneur
2017-05-03, 1:36 PM #1740
There's Marxist feminism who criticize capitalism for not accounting the unpaid labours of women. Not sure if that's what you're talking about.
2017-05-03, 1:45 PM #1741
I formally declare this thread long enough to be a filesystem.
2017-05-03, 1:45 PM #1742
This post has been deduplicated by the filesystem daemon.
2017-05-03, 1:57 PM #1743
Shh. It's ok.
former entrepreneur
2017-05-03, 1:58 PM #1744
Also: https://twitter.com/TheOnion/status/859437833945194500
former entrepreneur
2017-05-03, 2:03 PM #1745
Originally posted by Eversor:
Shh. It's ok.


I said deduplicated, not garbage collected, contrary to Finnish hopes.

What if we secretly moved all Massassi discussion into this thread after we move it to where he can't see it? :-P
2017-05-03, 2:07 PM #1746
Can we get the Asheron's Call forum back? :(
former entrepreneur
2017-05-03, 2:28 PM #1747
So the only reason leftism has become weirdly obsessed with identity politics is because, frankly, identity politics are in no way threatening to a capitalist system. But its rise has nothing to do with any conscious effort. It's just a result of the natural workings of capitalism. If leftism is permitted to exist, it must be non threatening. As a logically equivalent statement, if leftism is threatening, it can't be permitted to exist. That's why unions are so eagerly suppressed, that's why co-ops and other semi-anarchist organizations are violently harassed. Identity politics don't pose this threat, unless they demand paid maternal leave, in which case suddenly there's massive resistance to it.

But if you complain endlessly about how terrible it is that more women aren't CEOs, you're basically applauded for your brave journalism. One because it's impossible to do anything about, and two, you're giving legitimacy to the current economic organization of society.

It's not that much of a mystery, it's just what happens when effective leftism is suppressed, and useless leftism is ignored.
2017-05-03, 2:29 PM #1748
Originally posted by Eversor:


This so much. The stuff coming that has been churning out of the universities has let the left crawl so far up the asses of their own voting blocs that they pretty much forgot that the point of a democracy is to convince a majority of the population that your candidate is going to do a good job making life better for everybody.

They made the mistake of counting the number of groups they had locked down as voters, as a substitute for counting numbers of convinced people, inside (and outside) whatever groups they've constructed.

It would have been harder to convince people that aren't part of your identity politics, but by the same token it would have forced you to come up with a better platform.

They tried to sweep this under the rug and repeat mantras about changing demographics, but in the end it all blew up and they ought to be totally reinventing themselves.
2017-05-03, 2:32 PM #1749
Originally posted by Reid:
useless leftism is ignored.


Rather, it's used by cynical companies for free PR.
2017-05-03, 2:32 PM #1750
Quote:
They made the mistake of counting the number of groups they had locked down as voters, as a substitute for counting numbers of convinced people, inside (and outside) whatever groups they've constructed.


But let's be real. According to intersectionality theory and the "progressive stack", did anyone really think that "one man, one vote" would survive?

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
2017-05-03, 2:36 PM #1751
Originally posted by Reid:
So the only reason leftism has become weirdly obsessed with identity politics is because, frankly, identity politics are in no way threatening to a capitalist system. But its rise has nothing to do with any conscious effort. It's just a result of the natural workings of capitalism. If leftism is permitted to exist, it must be non threatening. As a logically equivalent statement, if leftism is threatening, it can't be permitted to exist. That's why unions are so eagerly suppressed, that's why co-ops and other semi-anarchist organizations are violently harassed. Identity politics don't pose this threat, unless they demand paid maternal leave, in which case suddenly there's massive resistance to it.

But if you complain endlessly about how terrible it is that more women aren't CEOs, you're basically applauded for your brave journalism. One because it's impossible to do anything about, and two, you're giving legitimacy to the current economic organization of society.

It's not that much of a mystery, it's just what happens when effective leftism is suppressed, and useless leftism is ignored.


Kinda funny when HRC, as the neoliberal who campaigned largely on emotional and blatant identity politics marketing, is on both sides of this opposing equation, esp. when you think of how catastrophically bad she ended up being for both masters she sought to serve.
2017-05-03, 2:41 PM #1752
OMG, the people in that Twitter thread seem mostly oblivious that the video is satire, or were seeming rubbed the wrong way by the suggestion that identity politics isn't a panacea.
2017-05-03, 2:47 PM #1753
It's almost as if {leftists who can take a joke or accept criticism} ∩ {people who can recognize the joke without also being an anti-SJW warrior} ∩ {Twitter users} = Ø.
2017-05-03, 8:41 PM #1754
Originally posted by Jon`C:
Hey, here's some stupid **** that hit HN.

https://futurism.com/by-2030-youll-be-living-in-a-world-thats-run-by-google/

OK, well, Google has developed a reputation for not actually accomplishing much of anything, so this will be interesting.

"You fail to wake up in the morning, January 1st, 2030, because you burned to death after your Nest(tm) AI-based smoke detector couldn't connect to Google App Engine."

Seriously, though. Honeywell is kicking the **** out of Nest. And unlike Nest, they actually know how to make these kinds of things.

Google has lost every single one of their self-driving car experts, while their technology still doesn't work. Tesla is the only company with an actual product on the market. Insiders say that even boring mainstream car companies like Ford are ahead of Google at this point.

Apple built their own. Apparently it's not that hard.

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Your "smart glasses" will show you ads for hot cocoa while you are drinking hot cocoa. Sure.

Yeah, sure, I bet a lot of retailers are gonna sign up to pay Google a commission.

Someone with absolutely zero shame.

Ah yes, the most convincing of supporting arguments: "etc."

citation needed.

But yeah, if Google were capable of diversification, they could totally rule the world in 13 years.


It's a good rule of thumb to ignore any and all futurism/futurology ****posting. People obsessed with that sort of thing are mentally unstable. As in, it's literally just science fiction that pretends to be literal so nerds can jerk off/get distracted about how great life will be in the future. Even though the take of that is dystopian aka "I read 1984 once" politics.

Originally posted by Eversor:
That could be. Another thing is what the fault lines were that split the outsider and the insider Democratic candidates in 2008 vs in 2016. It's true that in both 2008 and 2016, the outsider ran as an idealist who advocated change untempered by realistic expectations, while the insider ran as a hard-headed pragmatist whose goals were supposedly more restrained and grounded because of her experience. In that respect, they seem pretty similar. (Obama also possessed "celebrity", while Bernie had managed to create a "movement".)

But there were also some crucial differences. In 2008, an anti-elite (especially, anti-financial elite), anti-corporatist message didn't also define the attraction to the outsider candidate in the same way it did in 2016. In other words, the dividing line between Obama and Hillary wasn't between leftists and left-of-center liberals, in the way it was between Bernie and Hillary in 2016. In 2008, Obama wanted to expand the role of government and provide more robust public services than HRC. Once he was president, he governed as a corporatist. But he wasn't a hypocrite, because anti-corporatism had never really been a large part of his message.

When Obama ran in 2008, it was still anathema even for a Democrat to talk about seriously about income inequality (one of the big achievements of Occupy Wall Street was to make discourse about income inequality permissible on the left). But by 2016, a large enough portion of the democratic primary electorate had mobilized around the issue that a candidate who ran on it could pose a serious threat to the favored Democratic candidate.

TL;DR: HRC is criticized so much more than Obama because Hillary ran against a leftist, and Obama didn't. There was no candidate to the left of Obama who had a serious chance of beating him. And since Obama didn't have to defend himself from a genuine leftist candidate, it wasn't in the interest of a significant number of people on the left to defame him. That's not true for Hillary. The contempt so many have for her is largely a result of an especially divisive Democratic primary, with Democrats divided along ideological lines in a way they weren't in 2008.


The only reason Obama didn't run against a leftist in 2012 is because he was incumbent, and his opponent came across like even worse of a pro-corporate *******, with that infamous line about half of Americans being lazy. I'm pretty sure the anger people felt in 2016 is exactly what they felt in 2012, it's just the space for criticism was more open in 2016. The feelings from OWS are still very widely felt by all.

Also, maybe the general feeling among the liberal left is kind to Obama, but most leftists never really liked Obama, even moreso when they realized he backed up none of his more populist policies and ACA wasn't all it was cracked up to be.
2017-05-03, 8:51 PM #1755
Originally posted by Jon`C:
No. Keynesianists focus on fiscal and monetary carrots (contrasted with monetarists, who think imaginary carrots are enough). My view is expressly that no amount of positive inducement is sufficient to dampen the business cycle. Carrots do not work without sticks.


Okay, it's just the Wikipedia mentioned Keynes.

What I seem to get is that, economies can be locked into a cycle where there's not enough demand to maintain growth. Though the Wikipedia mentions a couple potential causes. Which do you find particularly convincing?

Quote:
Profiting by ignoring laws your competitors follow isn't difficult enough that I would consider it "speculation".


Does Google follow under this category with their collusion?
2017-05-03, 9:00 PM #1756
Originally posted by Eversor:
Yet another double standard. Obama didn't support gay marriage until 2012.


It could also just be that people's moral standards have changed?

I'll grant that many people are unfair with regards to Obama and Clinton, but if Obama were running in 2016 for the first time, I feel he would have been raked over the coals for these sorts of things. Sentiments about gay marriage have changed drastically from eight years ago.
2017-05-03, 9:02 PM #1757
Originally posted by Eversor:
Going back to the question, "why wasn't Obama criticized as much as HRC even though they were both corporatists": 2012 also matters. Obama succeeded in casting himself as a defender of the little guy, and of labor, against his opponent, whom he successfully associated with fat cats, and with capital, because of all Romney's ridiculous gaffes. And for Obama to maintain that position, he didn't have to cast himself as a democratic socialist in the manner of Bernie. He only had to uphold the Democratic status quo against the Republican party's typical small government, anti-entitlement spending, pro-privatization, anti-regulation, pro-Citizens United, "corporations are people", "I love big bird", "47% won't vote for me", blah blah blah blah line. Obama may have paid at most occasional lip service to Occupy Wall Street and to its aftermath. But if you cared about income inequality, Obama was as good as you were going to get. It wasn't really in anyone's interest to attack him from the left.


I wonder if we could review polls? It's my impression more that people thought of Romney as a bigger ******* than Obama, I remember OWS holding a bunch of resentment against Obama for "selling out", yet it wouldn't get better with Romney.
2017-05-03, 9:04 PM #1758
Originally posted by Eversor:
There was also all this bull****: https://newrepublic.com/minutes/129335/feminist-gloria-steinem-says-young-women-support-bernie-want-attention-boys

That is, the Clinton campaign trying to guilt young women into voting for her. Which is to say: rallying people around HRC based on identity/feminism and stigma (something like: Bernie supporters are men, which means they're bad, and women who support Bernie are sex-frenzied sellouts to their tribe).


I remember seeing an article in a PEOPLE (I'm ashamed to admit I flipped through it) that basically said "if you're a woman and you don't vote Hillary then you're throwing away everything women have struggled for".

I think it escaped them that shaming women into voting a certain way is not empowering women, it's sort of the opposite. It was weird too, because the tone was hostile, it wasn't even a positive "go women" thing. It was just straight pressuring women to vote Hillary.
2017-05-03, 9:18 PM #1759
Originally posted by Reid:
I think it escaped them that shaming women into voting a certain way is not empowering women, it's sort of the opposite. .


Well I guess they were going for the strong weak woman vote. The ones who were supposed to respond to all the emotional adverts, and apparently as well the ones who need to be told how she could have been president, that she tried her best, but it wasn't her fault she lost because of Comey's meddling.

Indentity politics and woman branded advertising are not feminism! Clinton lost because her top down and empty appeals to identity belong in the trash along with the advertising industry in general, along with other brilliant ideas proginated from the corporate / elite intellectual circles she trafficked in.

That said, she might have been a good policy wonk and a conscientious person within the bounds of her political calculus. Like Obama.

Edited: 5 gazillion times
2017-05-03, 9:34 PM #1760
I mean if you are going to treat your voting bloc like cattle, and take their vote for granted so long as your marketing guru can check items off a clipboard about hitting your demographic in the right advertising markets, is it any suprise that

  1. the Clinton campaign would be utterly cynical in its focus on emotional appeals
  2. it wouldn't work, especially since she was not even half as black as she'd needed to have been, according (I am willing to guess) to market research to overcome the disappointing results of Obama


Not that any of this would have been good enough, since this entire strategy already cost her the uneducated white vote and therefore an embarrassing number of Midwestern states.
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364365366367368369370371372373374375376377378379380381382383384385386387388389390391392393394395396397398399400401

↑ Up to the top!