Derailment removed 1

System

This discussion was created from comments split from: The Democratic Candidates aka, the circular firing squad of dumbasses.

Spiritual_Chaos

mcgruff10 said:

don't be flight 93!!

Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

He’s right.

Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.

Too long didnt read:

”In America you have to play to the peoples egoistic me-me-me side. Have no ideas about the survival of the planet, making a society that is welcoming or other noble ideas. In America people do not want to help out their fellow citizens or make the country and world better. Its just me-me-me and why not bring coal back? Be the most cynical and shitty as you can - thats How America likes it!”

benjs

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

don't be flight 93!!

Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

He’s right.

Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.

Too long didnt read:

”In America you have to play to the peoples egoistic me-me-me side. Have no ideas about the survival of the planet, making a society that is welcoming or other noble ideas. In America people do not want to help out their fellow citizens or make the country and world better. Its just me-me-me and why not bring coal back? Be the most cynical and shitty as you can - thats How America likes it!”

Not that you'll ever listen, but not picking socialism as a foundation for a style of government doesn't make a country apathetic - It just makes a country 'not Sweden' (which I understand is an egregious sin in itself). Your 'too long didn't read' is shitty and purposefully inaccurate paraphrasing, though I'm sure you'll blame that on broken English like usual.

Spiritual_Chaos

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

don't be flight 93!!

Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

He’s right.

Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.

Too long didnt read:

”In America you have to play to the peoples egoistic me-me-me side. Have no ideas about the survival of the planet, making a society that is welcoming or other noble ideas. In America people do not want to help out their fellow citizens or make the country and world better. Its just me-me-me and why not bring coal back? Be the most cynical and shitty as you can - thats How America likes it!”

Not that you'll ever listen, but not picking socialism as a foundation for a style of government doesn't make a country apathetic - It just makes a country 'not Sweden' (which I understand is an egregious sin in itself). Your 'too long didn't read' is shitty and purposefully inaccurate paraphrasing, though I'm sure you'll blame that on broken English like usual.

Stop with the constant sleights. Det är oklädsamt. 

TLDR: Act your age

mcgruff10

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

don't be flight 93!!

Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

He’s right.

Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.

Too long didnt read:

”In America you have to play to the peoples egoistic me-me-me side. Have no ideas about the survival of the planet, making a society that is welcoming or other noble ideas. In America people do not want to help out their fellow citizens or make the country and world better. Its just me-me-me and why not bring coal back? Be the most cynical and shitty as you can - thats How America likes it!”

This was a little too long for me to read but As an American I can say without hesitation that this is 100% spot on.  

Spiritual_Chaos

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

don't be flight 93!!

Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

He’s right.

Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.

Too long didnt read:

”In America you have to play to the peoples egoistic me-me-me side. Have no ideas about the survival of the planet, making a society that is welcoming or other noble ideas. In America people do not want to help out their fellow citizens or make the country and world better. Its just me-me-me and why not bring coal back? Be the most cynical and shitty as you can - thats How America likes it!”

This was a little too long for me to read but As an American I can say without hesitation that this is 100% spot on.  

Its true in every country I would argue, with the cynisism and shortsighteness of politics. 

It takes more to energy to lock down a vote with believing in something good VS getting a vote by being a car salesman. 

I still think Warren can with - with believing in the green new deal even thought it takes more energy than ”i Hate immigrants too!” and ”I Will give you more money!”

benjs

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

don't be flight 93!!

Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

He’s right.

Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.

Too long didnt read:

”In America you have to play to the peoples egoistic me-me-me side. Have no ideas about the survival of the planet, making a society that is welcoming or other noble ideas. In America people do not want to help out their fellow citizens or make the country and world better. Its just me-me-me and why not bring coal back? Be the most cynical and shitty as you can - thats How America likes it!”

Not that you'll ever listen, but not picking socialism as a foundation for a style of government doesn't make a country apathetic - It just makes a country 'not Sweden' (which I understand is an egregious sin in itself). Your 'too long didn't read' is shitty and purposefully inaccurate paraphrasing, though I'm sure you'll blame that on broken English like usual.

Stop with the constant sleights. Det är oklädsamt. 

TLDR: Act your age

My constant sleights are not near constant (though they are consistent) and are not sleights (though they are logical). If you feel it's okay to be constantly condescending and to regularly define the world as either socialist like Sweden or self-serving, I will call you out on that, because it's a false statement (no matter how many times you make it). 

Spiritual_Chaos

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

don't be flight 93!!

Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

He’s right.

Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.

Too long didnt read:

”In America you have to play to the peoples egoistic me-me-me side. Have no ideas about the survival of the planet, making a society that is welcoming or other noble ideas. In America people do not want to help out their fellow citizens or make the country and world better. Its just me-me-me and why not bring coal back? Be the most cynical and shitty as you can - thats How America likes it!”

Not that you'll ever listen, but not picking socialism as a foundation for a style of government doesn't make a country apathetic - It just makes a country 'not Sweden' (which I understand is an egregious sin in itself). Your 'too long didn't read' is shitty and purposefully inaccurate paraphrasing, though I'm sure you'll blame that on broken English like usual.

Stop with the constant sleights. Det är oklädsamt. 

TLDR: Act your age

My constant sleights are not near constant (though they are consistent) and are not sleights (though they are logical). If you feel it's okay to be constantly condescending and to regularly define the world as either socialist like Sweden or self-serving, I will call you out on that, because it's a false statement (no matter how many times you make it). 

In what way did I bring up Sweden?

Maybe its not me your are obsessed with? But the country I happen to belong to? Could that be why You’re constantly running in the rain towards me screaming ”I love you” repeatedly watching me walk towards the woman you know will end up my wife If you don’t take this final chance in minute 95 of the films running time. 

”Will Emil turn around or will he leave with his future wife?” the audience asks themselves while you Hugh-Granting yourself towards me with rain and tears streaming down your face. 

Oklädsamt. 

mcgruff10

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

don't be flight 93!!

Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

He’s right.

Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.

Too long didnt read:

”In America you have to play to the peoples egoistic me-me-me side. Have no ideas about the survival of the planet, making a society that is welcoming or other noble ideas. In America people do not want to help out their fellow citizens or make the country and world better. Its just me-me-me and why not bring coal back? Be the most cynical and shitty as you can - thats How America likes it!”

Not that you'll ever listen, but not picking socialism as a foundation for a style of government doesn't make a country apathetic - It just makes a country 'not Sweden' (which I understand is an egregious sin in itself). Your 'too long didn't read' is shitty and purposefully inaccurate paraphrasing, though I'm sure you'll blame that on broken English like usual.

Stop with the constant sleights. Det är oklädsamt. 

TLDR: Act your age

My constant sleights are not near constant (though they are consistent) and are not sleights (though they are logical). If you feel it's okay to be constantly condescending and to regularly define the world as either socialist like Sweden or self-serving, I will call you out on that, because it's a false statement (no matter how many times you make it). 

In what way did I bring up Sweden?

Maybe its not me your are obsessed with? But the country I happen to belong to? Could that be why You’re constantly running in the rain towards me screaming ”I love you” repeatedly watching me walk towards the woman you know will end up my wife If you don’t take this final chance in minute 95 of the films running time. 

”Will Emil turn around or will he leave with his future wife?” the audience asks themselves while you Hugh-Granting yourself towards me with rain and tears streaming down your face. 

Oklädsamt. 

Drinking already?

mrussel1

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

don't be flight 93!!

Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

He’s right.

Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.

Too long didnt read:

”In America you have to play to the peoples egoistic me-me-me side. Have no ideas about the survival of the planet, making a society that is welcoming or other noble ideas. In America people do not want to help out their fellow citizens or make the country and world better. Its just me-me-me and why not bring coal back? Be the most cynical and shitty as you can - thats How America likes it!”

Not that you'll ever listen, but not picking socialism as a foundation for a style of government doesn't make a country apathetic - It just makes a country 'not Sweden' (which I understand is an egregious sin in itself). Your 'too long didn't read' is shitty and purposefully inaccurate paraphrasing, though I'm sure you'll blame that on broken English like usual.

Stop with the constant sleights. Det är oklädsamt. 

TLDR: Act your age

My constant sleights are not near constant (though they are consistent) and are not sleights (though they are logical). If you feel it's okay to be constantly condescending and to regularly define the world as either socialist like Sweden or self-serving, I will call you out on that, because it's a false statement (no matter how many times you make it). 

I just want to point out that yesterday was a good day on the AMT.  There was some really good conversation, certainly not agreement, but well thought out posts by 10 or so individuals.  It was quite nice. It really damaged my work productivity.
Remember Mark Twain's (alleged) quote:  Never argue with stupid people, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience".  

mcgruff10

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

don't be flight 93!!

Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

He’s right.

Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.

Too long didnt read:

”In America you have to play to the peoples egoistic me-me-me side. Have no ideas about the survival of the planet, making a society that is welcoming or other noble ideas. In America people do not want to help out their fellow citizens or make the country and world better. Its just me-me-me and why not bring coal back? Be the most cynical and shitty as you can - thats How America likes it!”

Not that you'll ever listen, but not picking socialism as a foundation for a style of government doesn't make a country apathetic - It just makes a country 'not Sweden' (which I understand is an egregious sin in itself). Your 'too long didn't read' is shitty and purposefully inaccurate paraphrasing, though I'm sure you'll blame that on broken English like usual.

Stop with the constant sleights. Det är oklädsamt. 

TLDR: Act your age

My constant sleights are not near constant (though they are consistent) and are not sleights (though they are logical). If you feel it's okay to be constantly condescending and to regularly define the world as either socialist like Sweden or self-serving, I will call you out on that, because it's a false statement (no matter how many times you make it). 

I just want to point out that yesterday was a good day on the AMT.  There was some really good conversation, certainly not agreement, but well thought out posts by 10 or so individuals.  It was quite nice. It really damaged my work productivity.
Remember Mark Twain's (alleged) quote:  Never argue with stupid people, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience".  

That it was.  I enjoyed discussing the article that I posted. Happy fourth to everyone. 

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

don't be flight 93!!

Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

He’s right.

Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.

Too long didnt read:

”In America you have to play to the peoples egoistic me-me-me side. Have no ideas about the survival of the planet, making a society that is welcoming or other noble ideas. In America people do not want to help out their fellow citizens or make the country and world better. Its just me-me-me and why not bring coal back? Be the most cynical and shitty as you can - thats How America likes it!”

Not that you'll ever listen, but not picking socialism as a foundation for a style of government doesn't make a country apathetic - It just makes a country 'not Sweden' (which I understand is an egregious sin in itself). Your 'too long didn't read' is shitty and purposefully inaccurate paraphrasing, though I'm sure you'll blame that on broken English like usual.

Stop with the constant sleights. Det är oklädsamt. 

TLDR: Act your age

My constant sleights are not near constant (though they are consistent) and are not sleights (though they are logical). If you feel it's okay to be constantly condescending and to regularly define the world as either socialist like Sweden or self-serving, I will call you out on that, because it's a false statement (no matter how many times you make it). 

I just want to point out that yesterday was a good day on the AMT.  There was some really good conversation, certainly not agreement, but well thought out posts by 10 or so individuals.  It was quite nice. It really damaged my work productivity.
Remember Mark Twain's (alleged) quote:  Never argue with stupid people, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience".  

Who is stupid on the board?

dankind

mrussel1

dankind said:

Haha.. that makes me think of another quote that often applies.  You hear it in poker and business.

"If you're sitting around the table wondering who the sucker is, it's probably you." 

Meltdown99

mrussel1 said:

dankind said:

Haha.. that makes me think of another quote that often applies.  You hear it in poker and business.

"If you're sitting around the table wondering who the sucker is, it's probably you." 

I never heard that saying before.  I like.

benjs

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

don't be flight 93!!

Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

He’s right.

Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.

Too long didnt read:

”In America you have to play to the peoples egoistic me-me-me side. Have no ideas about the survival of the planet, making a society that is welcoming or other noble ideas. In America people do not want to help out their fellow citizens or make the country and world better. Its just me-me-me and why not bring coal back? Be the most cynical and shitty as you can - thats How America likes it!”

Not that you'll ever listen, but not picking socialism as a foundation for a style of government doesn't make a country apathetic - It just makes a country 'not Sweden' (which I understand is an egregious sin in itself). Your 'too long didn't read' is shitty and purposefully inaccurate paraphrasing, though I'm sure you'll blame that on broken English like usual.

Stop with the constant sleights. Det är oklädsamt. 

TLDR: Act your age

My constant sleights are not near constant (though they are consistent) and are not sleights (though they are logical). If you feel it's okay to be constantly condescending and to regularly define the world as either socialist like Sweden or self-serving, I will call you out on that, because it's a false statement (no matter how many times you make it). 

I just want to point out that yesterday was a good day on the AMT.  There was some really good conversation, certainly not agreement, but well thought out posts by 10 or so individuals.  It was quite nice. It really damaged my work productivity.
Remember Mark Twain's (alleged) quote:  Never argue with stupid people, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience".  

I agree, and that's why I play sparingly. The other way I've heard that put is not to go mud wrestling with a pig - you both get dirty, but the pig likes it.

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

don't be flight 93!!

Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

He’s right.

Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.

Too long didnt read:

”In America you have to play to the peoples egoistic me-me-me side. Have no ideas about the survival of the planet, making a society that is welcoming or other noble ideas. In America people do not want to help out their fellow citizens or make the country and world better. Its just me-me-me and why not bring coal back? Be the most cynical and shitty as you can - thats How America likes it!”

Not that you'll ever listen, but not picking socialism as a foundation for a style of government doesn't make a country apathetic - It just makes a country 'not Sweden' (which I understand is an egregious sin in itself). Your 'too long didn't read' is shitty and purposefully inaccurate paraphrasing, though I'm sure you'll blame that on broken English like usual.

Stop with the constant sleights. Det är oklädsamt. 

TLDR: Act your age

My constant sleights are not near constant (though they are consistent) and are not sleights (though they are logical). If you feel it's okay to be constantly condescending and to regularly define the world as either socialist like Sweden or self-serving, I will call you out on that, because it's a false statement (no matter how many times you make it). 

I just want to point out that yesterday was a good day on the AMT.  There was some really good conversation, certainly not agreement, but well thought out posts by 10 or so individuals.  It was quite nice. It really damaged my work productivity.
Remember Mark Twain's (alleged) quote:  Never argue with stupid people, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience".  

Okey. If you are too much of a coward to stand by what you infer to together with your little Piggybacking loyalists. Here is a picture as response to your low-Level shitpost:

mrussel1

Look around the table for the sucker.  Grab a mirror. 

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

Look around the table for the sucker.  Grab a mirror. 

Look around the table and see who's the plastic bag from the Neil Young song.

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Look around the table for the sucker.  Grab a mirror. 

Look around the table and see who's the plastic bag from the Neil Young song.

Why are you quoting me?  Give it a rest. 

hedonist

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

benjs said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

don't be flight 93!!

Democrats’ Leftward Turn Was a Reaction to Hillary Clinton

The consensus view on the right is that Hillary Clinton was a primary reason for Donald Trump’s success in 2016. But not all conservatives agree about why that was.

For devotees of the Trump-as-savior narrative, Clinton — and all the allegedly nefarious forces at her beck and call — was a uniquely formidable opponent. Defeating her required a different kind of Republican, one who’d be willing to fight as dirty and as tough as the Democrats. This was a “Flight 93 election,” and Trump was the hero we needed to storm the cockpit.

Others on the right see it differently. It wasn’t so much that Trump was the one person who could beat Clinton, but that she was the one candidate he could beat. In other words, it was only thanks to the fact that she was so unpopular that Trump had a chance. Trump-reluctant Republicans and independents could be persuaded that he was better than Clinton — when presented with a binary choice.

The latter seems vastly more plausible for the simple reason that Trump didn’t have to convince those voters that Clinton was unlikable and a little scary; he simply had to exploit their pre-existing opinion of her. Indeed, Trump’s continued obsession with bashing Clinton points to how central she is to his identity.

This has consequences for 2020 because the White House’s entire strategy boils down to making Trump’s opponent more unlikable than he is. If Trump wasn’t responsible for Hillary’s unfavorable numbers in the first place, it remains to be seen whether he can Hillaryize another Democrat.

It may not be all that hard, though, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to keep the Flight 93 panic alive on the right. They’re doing this by running so far to the left that many Trump-skeptical Republicans feel as if they have no choice but to vote for him again. (I hear this from my fellow conservatives every day.) Democratic candidates have openly praised socialism, the Green New Deal, the abolition of private insurance, voting rights for incarcerated felons, federal funding of abortion late into pregnancy, confiscatory “wealth taxes,” and even the right to sex-change operations paid for by taxpayers.

And here is where I think Clinton’s true historical significance isn’t being recognized. Again, conservatives (including yours truly) invested a lot of time and energy in shaping public perceptions of Clinton. But the blame — or credit — doesn’t just go to the right. Clinton herself did much to help the effort. She was never the natural politician her husband was. She lacked his gift for reading the electorate and speaking to voters’ concerns. She collected all of her husband’s baggage without any of her husband’s skill at deflecting criticism. She wasn’t very likable.

This was a huge advantage for Bernie Sanders in 2016. He came way closer to beating Clinton in the primaries than most people thought he would by tapping into the passion of the base and the frustrations of other Democrats who didn’t relish a Clinton dynasty and disliked both Hillary personally and the corrupt practices of the establishment she represented. She ran on the implied claim that it was simply her “turn” to be president — a poisonous framing in a populist moment (just ask Jeb Bush). In retrospect, not being Hillary was almost as big a boon for Sanders as it was for Trump.

If the Clinton machine had not scared away more talented and resourceful politicians from running in 2016, it’s possible that someone other than Sanders would have captured the passion of the party, just as Obama did when he toppled Hillary as the inevitable nominee in 2008.

But that didn’t happen, and as a result, the Democratic party got the message that Sanders-style socialist populism was the key to success, just as the GOP has concluded that Trump-style nationalist populism is the future of the right.

Sanders’ frustration at no longer being the undisputed voice of the base is palpable. “They said our ideas are crazy and wild and extreme,” he recently complained. “And now it turns out all of the other candidates are saying what we said four years ago.”

He’s right.

Of course, there are larger historical forces at work here, but it sure looks like Hillary Clinton’s candidacy was an inflection point, because it galvanized not only the GOP’s turn toward nationalism but the Democrats’ turn toward socialism. She’ll never be president, but she’s made history nonetheless.

Too long didnt read:

”In America you have to play to the peoples egoistic me-me-me side. Have no ideas about the survival of the planet, making a society that is welcoming or other noble ideas. In America people do not want to help out their fellow citizens or make the country and world better. Its just me-me-me and why not bring coal back? Be the most cynical and shitty as you can - thats How America likes it!”

Not that you'll ever listen, but not picking socialism as a foundation for a style of government doesn't make a country apathetic - It just makes a country 'not Sweden' (which I understand is an egregious sin in itself). Your 'too long didn't read' is shitty and purposefully inaccurate paraphrasing, though I'm sure you'll blame that on broken English like usual.

Stop with the constant sleights. Det är oklädsamt. 

TLDR: Act your age

My constant sleights are not near constant (though they are consistent) and are not sleights (though they are logical). If you feel it's okay to be constantly condescending and to regularly define the world as either socialist like Sweden or self-serving, I will call you out on that, because it's a false statement (no matter how many times you make it). 

I just want to point out that yesterday was a good day on the AMT.  There was some really good conversation, certainly not agreement, but well thought out posts by 10 or so individuals.  It was quite nice. It really damaged my work productivity.
Remember Mark Twain's (alleged) quote:  Never argue with stupid people, they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience".  

Okey. If you are too much of a coward to stand by what you infer to together with your little Piggybacking loyalists. Here is a picture as response to your low-Level shitpost:

If you hate something, don't you do it too.

I agree with the previous comment - it was actually nice to visit here and not be bombarded by metaphorical dick-measuring.  The MO gets old pretty quickly.

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Look around the table for the sucker.  Grab a mirror. 

Look around the table and see who's the plastic bag from the Neil Young song.

Why are you quoting me?  Give it a rest. 

Why are you quoting people responding to me to call me "stupid"? Give an answer to that please.

Spiritual_Chaos

Seth on the Dem debates:

https://youtu.be/wiUduy3kwoo

dankind

https://mydickband.bandcamp.com/track/baker-dick

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Look around the table for the sucker.  Grab a mirror. 

Look around the table and see who's the plastic bag from the Neil Young song.

Why are you quoting me?  Give it a rest. 

Why are you quoting people responding to me to call me "stupid"? Give an answer to that please.

Don't blame your insecurities on me.  You keep doing you.  I'm sure it's working out great. 

Meltdown99

Girls...do not get this thread closed AGAIN.  And do not get yourself banned...not worth it.

mrussel1

Meltdown99 said:

Girls...do not get this thread closed AGAIN.  And do not get yourself banned...not worth it.

Do not make me post Mrs Garrett's boobs again. I'll do it.  

Spiritual_Chaos

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Look around the table for the sucker.  Grab a mirror. 

Look around the table and see who's the plastic bag from the Neil Young song.

Why are you quoting me?  Give it a rest. 

Why are you quoting people responding to me to call me "stupid"? Give an answer to that please.

Don't blame your insecurities on me.  You keep doing you.  I'm sure it's working out great. 

Too coward yet again to stand for what you post.

Spiritual_Chaos

Tulsi Gabbard, whoever she is:

https://youtu.be/IwlB8udp0bs

Meltdown99

mrussel1 said:

Meltdown99 said:

Girls...do not get this thread closed AGAIN.  And do not get yourself banned...not worth it.

Do not make me post Mrs Garrett's boobs again. I'll do it.  

LOL...do it.  I dare you.

mrussel1

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mrussel1 said:

Look around the table for the sucker.  Grab a mirror. 

Look around the table and see who's the plastic bag from the Neil Young song.

Why are you quoting me?  Give it a rest. 

Why are you quoting people responding to me to call me "stupid"? Give an answer to that please.

Don't blame your insecurities on me.  You keep doing you.  I'm sure it's working out great. 

Too coward yet again to stand for what you post.

Careful on your name calling.  I'd hate for you to get banned.  Where will we get our useful information then?