/baw/ - General Discussion

:/

A fitting op for our times

>>412325
What subtle satire.

>House Republicans this week reinstated an arcane procedural rule that enables lawmakers to reach deep into the budget and slash the pay of an individual federal worker — down to $1 — a move that threatens to upend the 130-year-old civil service.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/house-republicans-revive-obscure-rule-that-could-allow-them-to-slash-the-pay-of-individual-federal-workers-to-1/2017/01/04/4e80c990-d2b2-11e6-945a-76f69a399dd5_story.html

Are libs using the shitskin meme?

>>412343
>130-year
Wow it's almost the exact timeframe for when America started sucking.

>>412350
>Are libs using the shitskin meme?
That's a bit of a stretch, now.

Sorry my bad, it's not an endangered eagle, it's some Indian chick with a retarded name. Fate Mottled Eagle or something.

I'm sure the vote was supposed to go to Hillary though, so obviously another case of SJW betraying each other and eating their own.

>>412343
extra ominous with the transition team trying to get the names of people working on climate research and gender equality

>>412355

As well as a list of government employees working on research into violent extremist groups within the US, last I heard.

>proximity graphs

We already have /pol/ infographics about who is Jewish or not.

If there is one thing 2016 has taught me, it's that the plucky upstarts are bad and the illuminati know best.

>>412360
>the illuminati know best
New World Order pls go

>>412360
I mean hey
https://psmag.com/the-new-blood-libel-5fd5f8cca136#.8nctin4g7
it's nothing new

>>412364
>denial is conclusive evidence
Great irrationality.

>>412363
Oh okay so I'm not the only one who spent all last year thinking of Dreyfus.

>>412364

pssst, bro, check the spelling on the names in that tweet.

its okay we know you're a bit special, dude.

>>412368
One is linkedin...

>>412359
Hilariously, WL deleted not only the creepy doxx tweet but the one where they falsely identified this guy.

WL was usurped by one guy who is so libertarian he turned into a fascist, the other founders left in disgust.

>>412369
He means:
>David Kaye
>David Keye
are most likely two different people. Wikileaks is accusing user David Kaye of being former official David Keye

>>412372
Really reflects well on Wikileaks' dedication to the Truth at all Costs(TM) that they can't even be bothered to do simple fact-checking.

>>412379
>>412372
>>412370
I'm still not seeing the problem, Wikileaks misspelled his name, what does that have to do with anything?

https://twitter.com/davidakaye
>website link: law.uci.edu/faculty/full-t…
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/kaye/
Prof. Kaye began his legal career with the U.S. State Department

Him saying "I don't know who that is" is fucking retarded, he's an old friend of Hillarys.

Chain of failure posts by retarded anons who so desperately cling to the idea that their wicked witch of the west isn't wicked, that they're willing to shit on a transparency agency that has published shit to embarrass everyone. They've published shit that embarrassed Russia, Iraq, Lybia, the Bush admin, the Obama admin, the NSA, the FBI, the Dems, the GOP, fucking everyone.

http://money.cnn.com/interactive/news/kfile-trump-monica-crowley-plagiarized-multiple-sources-2012-book/

>In the book, Crowley lifted an entire section on Keynesian economics from the IAC-owned website Investopedia.

Embarrassing.

>>412382

Trump does not care about this. If anything, it might even make him like her more.

2016 is going to go down in history as the year America asked itself if Trump was trolling or retarded and wrongfully decided "trolling"

>>412385
Those aren't mutually exclusive possibities, though. He's dumb, but thrives on being underestimated by appearing even dumber.

>>412385
That was deep, maaaaaan...

>>412385
>Trump is to blame for Trump being elected
//youtube.com/watch?v=HyT7vXdyieM

Shocking nobody, Congress is trying to rush the cabinet appointments ahead of the ethics and background reviews.

>>412388
>Trump is to blame for Trump being elected
I'm sure the DNC picking* an unelectable individual had nothing to do with it.

*Instead of relying on the wishes of Democrat voters.

>>412393
>Instead of relying on the wishes of Democrat voters.

What is this object talking about? The Sanders zealots are still angry that people who *weren't* democrats didn't get to vote in the primaries.

>>412394
>What is this object talking about? The Sanders zealots are still angry that people who *weren't* democrats didn't get to vote in the primaries.
Regardless of your feelings on Sanders, the Primary system has set things up such that we would have a purer democratic experience if we were a single party state than we do as a two party state. Thanks to the primary system, the only people we get to vote for are those who were deemed worthy by donors in the shadow primary that precedes the public primaries (that is to say, the round where prospective candidates go around asking the country's millionaires and billionaires for permission to run in the form of begging for campaign donations, ensuring that the person who wins the race will always be someone who works for the wealthy first--or else they won't get to run for reelection), and then less than half the country gets any say in who the candidates they get to vote on are.

This election is a pretty good example of why that's bad: the majority of the country hated *both* candidates. I'm not talking "hated one candidate and found the other one to be the lesser of two evils," I mean the majority of people in the country thought that either choice was a net loss for the country. That's not something that happens in a democracy. That's something that happens when you only get to choose from people who have been deemed acceptable by the Powers That Be.

And it's something that happened because the primary system--even without any dishonest behavior on the parts of the people in charge--keeps a lot of people from having any say in who they get to vote for at all. At least in a one-party system with open primaries, we'd all get to choose from the entire field of candidates. Under the two parties-plus-primaries system, we get shit like 2016, where a fucking Reality TV Star who knows absolutely nothing about foreign or domestic policy and has absolutely no experience, talent, skill, or knowledge relevant to being president managed to become the most powerful man in the world.

At this point I would welcome a single party state, even if it were the a party of lunatics like the Republicans. Because if everyone were required by law to be Republicans, but all Republicans were allowed to vote in the primaries, then the Republican Primaries would become the actual race for President, and everyone would be eligible, and they would have to follow the will of the "Republican" voters. It would be like we didn't have political parties at all. And then we might actually get representatives that represent the interests of the majority rather than representatives that represent the most dedicated trolls.

>>412393
https://newrepublic.com/article/135472/no-dnc-didnt-rig-primary-favor-hillary

Democratic voters sided overwhelmingly with Hillary, in fact. Bernie was popular with the youth but had no traction with minorities, and the youth don't vote.

>>412396
Hey remember how tim kaine stepped down as DNC chair and recommended debbie wasserman schultz as chair? Isn't it funny that hillary took tim as vice president, and when debbie got fired she immediately got hired by the hillary campaign? or perhaps re-hired lol. Also remember when donna brazile, an interim DNC chair between tim kaine and debbie wasserman shultz, served as bill clintons advisor in 1992? Isn't it funny during 2016 while working at the CNN as a commentator, she stole some questions from the CNN hosted debate and gave them to hillary ahead of time? Fun times in the ole nest of snakes.

>>412399 (checked)
It's also an article from July, before the most damning shit came out. He has to go back in time to get to his safe place.

This is why I told you not to talk to the Trumpets. It's a waste of your time.

>>412400
>(checked)
kek'd :^)

>>412401
Stop shitposting please

>>412401
>Trumpets
What is it with these lame ass insults? Don't you have any imagination?

>>412406
why can't this thread be more humorous, rather than srs bsns?

>>412401
They're just mad that people continue to disrespect their man who would be king.

>>412399
>In 4 years the democract candidate needs to visit all 50 states multiple times per month
Not really. There's no reason for a Democratic candidate to visit California or New York, nor places like Utah, Kansas, Alabama, or Mississippi. The electoral college is still going to make those people's opinions irrelevant to anyone campaigning for president for the foreseeable future.

>>412406
It's not politically correct to call them "retarded" anymore. And no one gets their jimmies rustled by someone being politically incorrect toward them than a Trump supporter.

>>412409
Fortunately, once the Republicans have broken everything, again, the Rust Belt and Florida will be back where they belong and we can get back to fixing things, AGAIN.

>>412411

Not unless the Supreme Court stays in a 5-4 conservative split until 2020. A conservative-heavy SCOTUS can help hold back progress - or reverse it - for decades. (The GOP wants a conservative SCOTUS so as to dismantle Roe v Wade once and for all, for starters.) One of the reasons I voted for Clinton was because she would have tipped the scales in favor of a progressive-leaning SCOTUS.

>>412408
>They're just mad that people continue to disrespect their man who would be king.
>their man who would be king.
>would be king
>would
>he still hasnt won!!! there's a path to victory for hillary! we're ready!!!
The man who is the mountain king.
//youtube.com/watch?v=XvyRIgPImOY

>>412409
>There's no reason for a Democratic candidate to visit California or New York, nor places like Utah, Kansas, Alabama, or Mississippi.
Bwahaha this is how you lost the rust belt, you were CERTAIN it would go democrat and Trump chipped away at that security with multiple rallies. If yours is the mindset in the democratic party, I guess we'll have 8 years of Trump, and maybe even another GOP bobblehead at the end of it like Reagan-Bush.

>>412410
Yeah but if you call someone retarded, who won against you, you're just insulting yourself.

>>412413
At present all they'll get is a replacement for Scalia, who given Trump is liable to be a corporate stooge but socially liberal (or at least not a threat to OvH or RvW) though who knows if they'll be activist or originalist.

Trump will be terrible, but not as terrible as the people who voted for him thinking that president=king believe, and whatever else is to be said of him he is set to squabble with Ryan and McConnell on a wide variety of issues.

What's important now is two things: get our ground game back on track so we can be ready to pin all their fuckups on them, and drop this bipartisan horseshit that only gets us spit on by them, it's time to say no, no, no at every turn because clearly it works.

>>412417
She would have won the rust belt without Comey and the Russians. People forget about Three counties in three states had a big impact.

>>412418

>At present all they'll get is a replacement for Scalia, who given Trump is liable to be a corporate stooge but socially liberal (or at least not a threat to OvH or RvW) though who knows if they'll be activist or originalist.

All things considered, that could still do just as much damage as a more conservative Justice than even Scalia. Same-sex marriage and abortion rights are big targets. They will need defending. But those issues do not make up the entire Republican platform. Assaults on the separation of church and state, gun control measures, and the strength of organized labor are all things that a conservative-leaning Supreme Court could rule on in a way that pleases Republicans (and their voter base). With control of all three branches of the federal government, the Republicans have two years - minimum - to enact policy, have the President sign it, and have the Supreme Court declare it legal. Two years is a lot of time to do a lot of things that will require a lot of cleaning up. (And all this assumes the United States will still even be a thing by the 2018 mid-term elections.)

>Trump will be terrible, but not as terrible as the people who voted for him thinking that president=king believe

He will enable the Republican-controlled Congress to pass whatever it wants. He will allow his incoming cabinet to use their offices to push dangerous policies onto Americans and promote dangerous ideas both here and abroad. He will drag the country into a war - possibly even a nuclear war - just by using Twitter.

Donald Trump will be worse than a king. At least a king makes a pretense of giving damn about people other than himself.

>get our ground game back on track so we can be ready to pin all their fuckups on them

That will not be difficult. The GOP controls a majority of state legislatures, a majority of governorships, both chambers of Congress, and the executive branch of the federal government. (It will soon control the Supreme Court, too.) If they fuck up, they have no one to blame for it but themselves; only their policies will be the ones getting pushed through, and they cannot blame the Democrats for that. (Though I suspect they will try.)

>drop this bipartisan horseshit that only gets us spit on by them, it's time to say no, no, no at every turn because clearly it works

Too long has the left - and the Democrats - believed that the GOP will compromise for the general welfare of the American public. That lie must be laid to rest.

The GOP will do everything possible to keep Democrats from getting any political power back; the defenses of gerrymandering and voter ID laws are proof enough of that. The left can no longer accept the idea that Republicans will ever compromise in any way. That way lies madness.

That only gets into part of the problem, though. As much as liberals mock the idea of "economic anxieties" as the main reason for Trump's victory, the left - or the DNC, at least - has ignored the economic plight of millions of Americans. Hillary did not push hard enough for a raise to the minimum wage, nor did she ever touch on the loss of sociopolitical power within the organized labor movement. If the left is to regain any political sway in the midterms, Democrats must address those issues in ways that speak to both sides of the aisle.

They must also do that in ways that speak to more than "the White working class". The kind of "economic anxieties" faced by that demographic are not the same as those faced by, say, Black working class people. Men have differing "anxieties" than women. Intersectional politics matters now more than ever. The left cannot win elections without broad support, and it cannot count on left-leaning demographics to just give their vote to Democrats any more. If the Democrats want a diverse coalition of voters, it must actually make an effort to reach those voters, or their cause is lost.

But many White voters don't want better lives or a better nation. They want to hurt people at home and abroad that they hate, and don't really care what happens to the roads, schools or wages in their region. Brownback, Walker, Jindal.

These are not people that can be understood. Only overpowered.

>>412422

>But many White voters don't want better lives or a better nation.

No, they do want better lives and a better nation. But those kinds of White people that you describe want those things at the expense of others. If other people must suffer - or even die - to achieve "betterness", well, that is a price those White people are willing to "pay".

This logic is not unique to conservatives, but it is most prominent in conservative circles. Hell, it even pops up in the debate about healthcare and the Affordable Care Act. The GOP wants to repeal at least parts of the ACA, and if people lose their healthcare coverage (or their lives) while the Republicans work out a feasible replacement, so be it. "Those people should not have gotten sick," this logic will say. "They should have taken better care of themselves. It was their responsibility, they handled it wrong, and now they have to pay the price."

>>412417
>The man who is the mountain king.

Presidents aren't kings. Something you Trump shitlords ought to try to remember.

>>412417
>Bwahaha this is how you lost the rust belt, you were CERTAIN it would go democrat and Trump chipped away at that security with multiple rallies.
You're completely stupid if you think California or New York are going to go red any time in the near future, and completely dishonest if you're seriously trying to say that the "safe states" like those are anything comparable to the rust belt (for instance, I never heard anything about the Rust Belt being "sure things" for Clinton. I got most of my polling from Five Thirty Eight, who were very vehement about the fact that Clinton's "firewall" was incredibly tenuous and that her chances of winning were only about four out of five). But then again, you voted for Trump, so I guess we already knew both those things.

>>412423
>No, they do want better lives and a better nation
No, there are quite a lot of white people whose greatest wish politically is for them not to have to change in any way. "South Park Libertarians" are of this variety--whatever political position doesn't require them to give a shit about anything or make any changes in their own behavior is the "correct" stance to take, and everyone else with desires to make things different in any way--including those trying to improve things--are the biggest enemies to right-thinking people imaginable.

>>412426
The only way to improve things is to be a Randian (male) inventor or scientist who dazzles the ungrateful vermin with boons and wonders!

>>412427
Nah, not for South Park libertarians. Regular libertarians, sure, but the South Park libertarians' primary "motivator" is laziness and apathy, not Randian avarice.

Mitch McConnell is a huge hypocrite, surprising nobody:

https://thinkprogress.org/mitch-mcconnell-confirmation-ethics-hypocrisy-2c75b671d694#.lxvcfnnia

>>412428
>South Park libertarians
Unless the show changed greatly since I last saw it, I thought that meant:
>"Conservatives are totally retarded, liberals are totally retarded, mid-ground is the only sane answer."

>>412430
Yeah, exactly. Golden mean fallacy is easily the laziest and most nihilistic political philosophy imaginable. It is the position of a person who has found their comfort zone and wants to make sure no one else interferes with it by daring to change things. "Gays should be able to marry because it doesn't affect me, but we shouldn't do anything about climate change because that would require me to either pay more for products or start recycling, and doing shit or caring about anything is gay." That's South Park in a nutshell.

https://twitter.com/HelenKennedy/status/818522209283178498

Pale thing that is depending on Obamacare/ACA is happy that Obamacare is getting repealed until someone informs him Obamacare and the ACA are the same thing.

The pale thing probably thought that Obamacare was something the government only gave to women who won't sleep with nice guys and blackety-blacks.

What was that thing about the IQ levels of various ethnicities again?

>>412420
>without Comey and the Russians
What, zero blame on her for running a private server and backroom dealing at the DNC?

I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

>>412435
At least the repeal will kill tons of rednecks.

>>412438

I know you think that is funny, but as someone who lives in what could be called part of "Redneck Country", even I feel bad about that. No one should have to die because our fucking government cannot work out a comprehensive, feasible plan for national healthcare.

>>412439
They were being serious.

>>412439
They voted to kill others, it is fitting that they in turn die. No mercy for those who rejected all offered aid and decided to destroy themselves and others.

>>412441

>They voted to kill others, it is fitting that they in turn die.

Would you prefer to execute Trump voters or merely torture them into suicide? I mean, as long as you think they should die, you can at least be honest about your preferred method of death for them.

>>412442
I don't have to do anything, and attempts to guilt are pointless. I voted and campaigned for the people that actually would help those idiots, and they committed suicide out of spite.

They're already dead despite my trying to save them.

>>412443

So you would let people die all because of who they voted for? I am upset by the idea of President Donald Trump as any other decent human being, but I did not lose my basic sense of empathy when he won the election. Why should anyone have to die because he won? Why should we just let bodies pile up because of who our next president will be?

I understand your frustration with Trump voters. But as much as I believe they made a mistake that will have long-lasting consequences upon this country, I do not similarly believe they should have to die for that mistake. Their lives should not be a sacrifice upon which the Altar of Trump is built, no matter how much you want to stack their skulls at Capitol Hill and yell at the Republicans. Holy fucking shit, do you not even have a sense of humanity left in you any more? I am a liberal SJW cuck asshole (or so others have said), and even I cannot fathom letting people die over their political opinions, much less trying to justify it as a good and righteous thing.

>>412444
You're entire premise is based on a false assertion.
>Let
This one, specifically. I cannot "let" them die. I, in fact, did everything I could to stop that. They, by contrast, handed three guns to Ryan, McConnell, and Trump, and said "shoot me!"

They're beyond my help now. They will suffer the consequence of their actions.

>>412445

And you will let the repeal of the ACA go through without voicing any opposition to that repeal? You will not fight for a better healthcare system - or push Congress to put forth a better healthcare law and reform the industry? You will not do whatever you can to help the downtrodden and the poor who will suffer the most from a Trump presidency, to help those with whom you both agree and disagree?

You will sit by and do nothing but watch in smug satisfaction as millions of people lose their insurance, their access to healthcare, and even their lives - and all because you voted against Trump?

>>412446
We. Do. Not. Have. Any. Branch. Of. Government.

We CANNOT help them now. We'll voice our dissent sure, and the Republicans will bury it. What help we can offer outside of power is better used on those that actually deserve it. Let the Rust Belt learn their lessons, and the real Red states burn.

>>412447

>We CANNOT help them now.

What you mean to say is that you cannot - will not - help them because you want to sit back and watch the world burn all so you can crow about how you did not vote for the guy who started the fire. You could get off your ass and involve yourself in protests and community organizing and doing anything you can (within reasonable and legal limits, natch) to obstruct and deny Republicans a mandate to do whatever they want. But you would rather save your precious sense of smug satisfaction at watching people with whom you share a political disagreement die. I cannot understand anyone that heartless - and I refuse to try. So sit on your ass, snarf down your favorite snack food, and keep laughing at the thought of people dying. It is about all you ever planned to do in the first place, you hateful fucking monster.

>>412448
Listen you smug fuck, I AM involved in organization and charity work. I work in campaigning for my candidates, I call my representatives, I aid the homeless. I help those who I am able to help. Brother Jimmy Joe, his cousin wives, and his fellow knights? Can't help them. Tried. Had all federal political power taken from us in response. Bob Johnson and the good ol' boys of the Steel Union? Decided that a NYC real estate mogul was more their ally than the middle class worker's daughter. They're beyond us.

>Mandate
Lol the Republicans don't give a fuck about having a mandate, their entire political philosophy is about excising the underclasses and serving the rich.

AND FURTHERMORE, their deaths, which again, we tried to stop them from rushing towards, now can only benefit us when we're out of power. Not only does it have the inherent benefit of one less Republican, it's all on the GOP's head. Maybe after Cletus' incest tree has been trimmed a bit, he'll finally realize the Republicans aren't his allies.

>>412449

>They're beyond us.

That is not reason enough to give up on trying to help them. That is not a good enough reason for me to want them dead, no matter how much I may disagree with their politics. I will not lose my empathy for others because of their politics or who they voted for last November, and I will not let go of the idea that I can help others even when the political party I tend to vote for has little-to-no political power right now. That is not who I am, and that is not who I want to be.

I do not hope for a sweeping Democrat victory in the midterms; instead, I plan to do whatever I can, given all my limitations, to help make that victory happen. And if that victory were to happen, I would not ask for the Democrats to "destroy red states" or let Trump voters die as a form of political revenge. I would instead ask for the Democrats to help everyone, even Republican voters, as much as possible. That is the humane thing to do. If Republican voters refuse that help, so be it - but I would not feel right if that help were not offered at all.

I have no illusions about how Republican voters will vote against their own interests. Democratic voters - and the political left at large - can do only what we should do no matter who is in charge: help our neighbors as best we can, fight as hard as possible for a better society, and organize like a motherfucker so that communities can elect people who will actually do right by them.

Cynicism is easy; anyone can say "well these people voted for Trump, time to watch them all die, ha ha". If you want to be cynical, go right ahead. I cannot stop you. I can only ask that you reconsider your cynicism and your defeatist attitude. Yes, liberals, progressives, and the Democrats lost big this past November - we got knocked the fuck out. So are you giving up, or are you getting up off the goddamn ground?

>>412451

That you see the loss of human life as a chance to gain political "points" is disgusting. What the actual fuck.

>>412452
>I do not hope for a sweeping Democrat victory in the midterms; instead, I plan to do whatever I can, given all my limitations, to help make that victory happen. And if that victory were to happen, I would not ask for the Democrats to "destroy red states" or let Trump voters die as a form of political revenge. I would instead ask for the Democrats to help everyone, even Republican voters, as much as possible. That is the humane thing to do. If Republican voters refuse that help, so be it - but I would not feel right if that help were not offered at all.
Help them yes, and one of the best ways to help them will be to ensure they can't hurt themselves by suppressing their votes. I'm not suggesting we don't take care of their health either, that's the Republican policy tyvm.
>Cynicism is easy; anyone can say "well these people voted for Trump, time to watch them all die, ha ha". If you want to be cynical, go right ahead. I cannot stop you. I can only ask that you reconsider your cynicism and your defeatist attitude. Yes, liberals, progressives, and the Democrats lost big this past November - we got knocked the fuck out. So are you giving up, or are you getting up off the goddamn ground?
I never stopped fighting, I've just accepted that playing fair with cheats is a losing game so tactics need to change.
>>412453
It's called playing the game Stone. We got our asses handed to us, it's time to wall up, look to our supporters, and be as obstructionist as possible, BECAUSE IT WORKS. If the Republicans want a policy that simultaneously ravages their base and makes them vulnerable to conversion? So much the better, we can use that to get power back and actually help people.

>>412456

Obstructionism payed off huge dividends for Republicans in Congress. The party is stronger than it ever has been, based off the relatively simple strategy of breaking the system and then campaign that the system is broke and only you can fix it.

y i k e s

>>412455

>suppressing their votes

Disenfranchising people because you do not like how they vote is a horrible strategy, and wanting to do that makes you no better than the Republicans who try to disenfranchise racial minorities and the poor from voting because they are non-White, poor, or both.

>I'm not suggesting we don't take care of their health either, that's the Republican policy tyvm.

This entire chain of replies started when you suggested that you were more than happy to watch Republican voters die because of the way they voted. Your expressed disdain for those people suggests you would not want to take care of their health if you were given the chance.

>I never stopped fighting, I've just accepted that playing fair with cheats is a losing game so tactics need to change.

You can say that without also saying you would be happy with people on "the other side" dying just to make "playing the game" easier.

>We got our asses handed to us, it's time to wall up, look to our supporters, and be as obstructionist as possible, BECAUSE IT WORKS.

As the Republicans have proved, all that pure obstructionism does is stop everything from working. While that might be the goal of Republicans - to stop the processes of government from working long enough to make Democrats look bad - it cannot become the long-term strategy of the political left. Democrats should obstruct bills and policies on principle; if a law or a policy would harm more than it would help, Democrats should toss up every wall they can. But trying to stop everything the GOP or Trump wants to do out of pure partisanship would land us in further political quagmire. The process has always been the most important part of our government; abandoning that in favor of immediate results when "your side" is in power puts us in a position like the one we are in today.

>If the Republicans want a policy that simultaneously ravages their base and makes them vulnerable to conversion? So much the better, we can use that to get power back and actually help people.

So if a policy decision from the GOP results in the deaths of American citizens - for example, Texas defunding Planned Parenthood clinics and spiking maternal mortality rate as a result - you care more about scoring political points for "your side" from those deaths than in the deaths themselves? I know that we cannot avoid talking about those deaths in these kinds of conversations, but we do not have to use the facts of those deaths only as a political ploy. Those people that died were actual people, goddamn you; they were not some abstract idea that you can use to "win" a "game". Have a little more respect for their lives - even if they might have had no respect for yours.

>>412460
>Disenfranchising people because you do not like how they vote is a horrible strategy, and wanting to do that makes you no better than the Republicans who try to disenfranchise racial minorities and the poor from voting because they are non-White, poor, or both.
That's exactly the point, the Republicans already DO it to us, we have no reason not to respond in kind.
>This entire chain of replies started when you suggested that you were more than happy to watch Republican voters die because of the way they voted. Your expressed disdain for those people suggests you would not want to take care of their health if you were given the chance.
I want them to experience the consequences of removing their own healthcare and that of others. My support is constantly aimed at universal healthcare, as you might imagine from the fact that I'm targeting them for, among other things, destroying our closest equivalent.
>You can say that without also saying you would be happy with people on "the other side" dying just to make "playing the game" easier.
'Happy' is less the word than 'unfazed.' This is what they asked for, why should I waste my sympathies?
>As the Republicans have proved, all that pure obstructionism does is stop everything from working. While that might be the goal of Republicans - to stop the processes of government from working long enough to make Democrats look bad - it cannot become the long-term strategy of the political left. Democrats should obstruct bills and policies on principle; if a law or a policy would harm more than it would help, Democrats should toss up every wall they can. But trying to stop everything the GOP or Trump wants to do out of pure partisanship would land us in further political quagmire. The process has always been the most important part of our government; abandoning that in favor of immediate results when "your side" is in power puts us in a position like the one we are in today.
No, the Republicans proved that obstructionist actions deliver you every branch of the government successively. That the Democrats don't resort to dirt or have party discipline is what got us here.
>So if a policy decision from the GOP results in the deaths of American citizens - for example, Texas defunding Planned Parenthood clinics and spiking maternal mortality rate as a result - you care more about scoring political points for "your side" from those deaths than in the deaths themselves? I know that we cannot avoid talking about those deaths in these kinds of conversations, but we do not have to use the facts of those deaths only as a political ploy. Those people that died were actual people, goddamn you; they were not some abstract idea that you can use to "win" a "game". Have a little more respect for their lives - even if they might have had no respect for yours.
No, what I care about is using the thing we can't help with as best we can to eventually seize the power to be able to do something about it. The Austin Dems should be exploiting every dead woman on the Republican's hands, and we should be doing the same on the national scale.

>>412461
>the Republicans already DO it to us
>us
Out of curiosity, which minority group(s) do you consider yourself a part of?

>>412463
Democrat, also fuck off Slowpoke.

>>412461

>the Republicans already DO it to us, we have no reason not to respond in kind

If Democrats want to have the high ground over Republicans and their policies, getting down into the shit and trying to fight dirty is the wrong way to do it. The left can do better than that. The left needs to do better than that.

>I want them to experience the consequences of removing their own healthcare and that of others. My support is constantly aimed at universal healthcare, as you might imagine from the fact that I'm targeting them for, among other things, destroying our closest equivalent.

And if people die as a result, hey, more points for your side, eh?

I am well aware that voting has consequences, and a repeal of the ACA will have dire consequences for millions of people. But I do not have to wish death upon those with whom I disagree to acknowledge that, nor do I have to be gleeful that they may die because of the way they voted. Liberals and progressives should not be celebrating this sort of thing because it might help them win future elections.

>This is what they asked for, why should I waste my sympathies?

If you want to help bridge the gap between the left and the right and engender bipartisan change in government and politics, acting as if the deaths of the people on "the other side" are nothing more than "points" in a "game" does not help your cause. (It also makes you come off as a bit of a heartless sociopath.)

>the Republicans proved that obstructionist actions deliver you every branch of the government successively

The Republicans gummed up the processes of government for years. They blamed their behavior on Barack Obama and the Democrats. They convinced their voter base that the government was broken and needed Republicans to fix it - despite Republicans having broken it in the first place. What they did was convince the GOP voter base that the results of government was more important than the processes; what they did not do was mention how they made sure those processes could not produce results of any kind.

If the left is to win back any political power, it cannot be done by being that obstinate. Obstruction on principles, not on partisanship, is what the Democrats need to do until the midterms. Or would you rather see the Democrats be blamed for a government shutdown and any ensuing economic chaos?

>The Austin Dems should be exploiting every dead woman on the Republican's hands

They should mention the spike in the maternal mortality rate, yes. But that should be a prelude to pointing out the benefits of funding Planned Parenthood, not an excuse to paint Republicans as murderers (which would be true exploitation of those deaths). Democrats cannot and will not win back political power with name-calling and finger-wagging alone; the success of Donald Trump's campaign proves as much.

>>412464
Any others, or just that one?
Again, only curious.

>If Democrats want to have the high ground over Republicans and their policies, getting down into the shit and trying to fight dirty is the wrong way to do it. The left can do better than that. The left needs to do better than that.
The high road doesn't deliver results, ergo it is worthless. Our ends are morally superior to theirs, they do in fact justify the means we use to crush them.
>And if people die as a result, hey, more points for your side, eh?
It is the result of their own actions.
>I am well aware that voting has consequences, and a repeal of the ACA will have dire consequences for millions of people. But I do not have to wish death upon those with whom I disagree to acknowledge that, nor do I have to be gleeful that they may die because of the way they voted. Liberals and progressives should not be celebrating this sort of thing because it might help them win future elections.
Celebrate? No. Use? Yes. The next election is always the most important thing.
>If you want to help bridge the gap between the left and the right and engender bipartisan change in government and politics, acting as if the deaths of the people on "the other side" are nothing more than "points" in a "game" does not help your cause. (It also makes you come off as a bit of a heartless sociopath.)
I don't want to bridge it. I have no desire to compromise with the people that destroyed the consensus in the first place. Republicans are not partners in governance, they are enemies of the nation and must be defeated.
>If the left is to win back any political power, it cannot be done by being that obstinate. Obstruction on principles, not on partisanship, is what the Democrats need to do until the midterms. Or would you rather see the Democrats be blamed for a government shutdown and any ensuing economic chaos?
They wouldn't be, Trump would. Whatever happens, the public believes it to be the presidential party's fault.
>They should mention the spike in the maternal mortality rate, yes. But that should be a prelude to pointing out the benefits of funding Planned Parenthood, not an excuse to paint Republicans as murderers (which would be true exploitation of those deaths). Democrats cannot and will not win back political power with name-calling and finger-wagging alone; the success of Donald Trump's campaign proves as much.
Do both. Clearly and briefly demonstrate the importance of healthcare and the costs of lacking it as often as possible. ALSO paint the Republicans as murderers, because they are.

>>412466
LGBTQ, the Republicans threaten me directly and often, no I am not black and thus not their primary voter suppression target, no that isn't actually relevant to the point, yes you should fuck off Slowpoke

>>412468
Just interesting to me that a genocidal white man considers himself So Different, is all. ✌

>>412468
>no I am not black and thus not their primary voter suppression target
They also target young people, especially college students, and any poor/lower middle class people living in the city in large amounts. It may not be to the degree they try to disenfranchise black people, but they are definitely targeting pretty much all millenials, specifically because millenials rarely vote republican.

>>412469
when did I say I was white

or, for that matter, when did I say anything about being "so different?" I said that Republican abuse voter suppression and that we should do the same

>>412467

>Our ends are morally superior to theirs, they do in fact justify the means we use to crush them.

If Democrats act no better than Republicans, they forgo any assumption of moral superiority.

>It is the result of their own actions.

So what? I do not consider that a viable excuse for leaving behind base-level human empathy.

>Celebrate? No. Use? Yes.

You may as well celebrate those deaths if you only ever plan to think of them in terms of political power-plays.

>I have no desire to compromise with the people that destroyed the consensus in the first place.

Normally, I might agree with you. But I have grown into something of a realist as of late, and as such, I know that the left needs to bridge that gap. Democrats have to acknowledge and address the issues of Republican voters, even if doing so only gets the party minor gains, because ignoring those issues will not help. Treating Republican voters like radioactive waste to be dumped in a landfill called "Middle America" will not help. Democrats do not need to concede on everything to bridge that divide - compromise should not be a death sentence, after all - but they do need to look for some form of middle ground with Republican voters and work towards reaching it.

>They wouldn't be, Trump would.

No, Democrats would be blamed for a government shutdown - at least by Republicans. Any stoppage of the processes of government in the next two-to-four years would be blamed on the Democrats and their "obstructionist tactics".

>Clearly and briefly demonstrate the importance of healthcare and the costs of lacking it as often as possible. ALSO paint the Republicans as murderers, because they are.

The Clinton campaign, the Democratic party, and the left in general painted Donald Trump as a sexist, racist, sociopathic monster of a human being who is unqualified to be the president of a business, much less the country - but Trump won anyway. Name-calling and finger-wagging might feel good in the moment. They might even be effective if used with precision and rarity. But they are no longer an effective political strategy for the left.

>>412473
>The Clinton campaign, the Democratic party, and the left in general painted Donald Trump as a sexist, racist, sociopathic monster of a human being who is unqualified to be the president of a business, much less the country - but Trump won anyway. Name-calling and finger-wagging might feel good in the moment. They might even be effective if used with precision and rarity. But they are no longer an effective political strategy for the left.

You're taking the redcaps' meme magic about "That's why Hilary lost!" more seriously than it deserves. Trump won because Hilary was a candidate who was almost as unpopular as Trump was, and Democratic voters were not enthusiastic enough about supporting her to bother showing up. More can be blamed on the fact that Clinton's supporters were openly dismissive and insulting toward the "losers" in the primaries, thus making them not feel as invested in Hilary's win, than in the fact that they were pointing out that Donald Trump is an idiot.

>If Democrats act no better than Republicans, they forgo any assumption of moral superiority.
Tactics are tactics, and we ours aren't working.
>So what?
So we need not treat them with any undue pity.
>You may as well celebrate those deaths if you only ever play to think of them in terms of political power-plays
what is this thread about Stone?
>Normally, I might agree with you. But I have grown into something of a realist as of late, and as such, I know that the left needs to bridge that gap. Democrats have to acknowledge and address the issues of Republican voters, even if doing so only gets the party minor gains, because ignoring those issues will not help. Treating Republican voters like radioactive waste to be dumped in a landfill called "Middle America" will not help. Democrats do not need to concede on everything to bridge that divide - compromise should not be a death sentence, after all - but they do need to look for some form of middle ground with Republican voters and work towards reaching it.
This is rewarding Republicans for their tantrums. I'm sure we could reach some Republicans if we compromised on abortion and thereby fed women to the right wing machine, or if we compromised on gun rights and pretended that shootings aren't a problem in America, but that's compromising on the ENDS which is even worse than compromising on the means (Which we need to do).
>No, Democrats would be blamed for a government shutdown - at least by Republicans. Any stoppage of the processes of government in the next two-to-four years would be blamed on the Democrats and their "obstructionist tactics".
Who gives a fuck about Republican voters? They blamed us for the REPUBLICANS shutting down the government. I'm talking about people like Rust Belters who actually switch sides (what would also be helpful: making unions be a thing again).
>The Clinton campaign, the Democratic party, and the left in general painted Donald Trump as a sexist, racist, sociopathic monster of a human being who is unqualified to be the president of a business, much less the country - but Trump won anyway. Name-calling and finger-wagging might feel good in the moment. They might even be effective if used with precision and rarity. But they are no longer an effective political strategy for the left.
They should not be the entirety but they should not be excluded either. "We shouldn't politicize a tragedy!!!" is a right wing tactic to steal initiative from the left and you can't fucking backstab us with it.

>>412477
>Tactics are tactics, and we ours aren't working.
Calling electors and threatening to kill their kids if they don't vote for the "right" candidate?

Having a Democrat president who is supposed to represent 100% of Americans turn around and campaign for only 1 political candidate?

Cheating at debates? Rigging internal DNC votes?

Come on.

Their tactics are actually worse at the moment, which is why the party is hemorhagging members to third parties and the right.

Oh and as another point, Stone: there's also the possible angle of "change nothing."

The election came down to the wire in a few key areas which ultimately turned out a mediocre electoral lead that ran against a clear popular lead. There's plenty of argument to make that if the DNC runs someone the RNC hasn't been lying about for 30 years on a similar platform they'd be able to take it, especially since the Republicans will inevitably be a disaster and deliver nothing.

>>412479
> if the DNC runs someone the RNC hasn't been lying about for 30 years
>RNC
>lying about
It's funny the way you're lowkey admitting that practically every democrat candidate was not elbow, but shoulder deep in the sewer of corruption.

>>412479
Yeah, let's not forget: more Americans voted for Hilary Clinton than for Donald Trump, in numbers that set a record for the most ridiculous Popular/Electoral split in history. This election was about as far from a referendum on Democrats or Republicans as it could possibly be. All this election proved is that you do actually have to play all nine innings even when your opponent appears to be a laughable buffoon.

>>412476

>More can be blamed on the fact that Clinton's supporters were openly dismissive and insulting toward the "losers" in the primaries, thus making them not feel as invested in Hilary's win, than in the fact that they were pointing out that Donald Trump is an idiot.

If you want to play that game, I can go along with it. But before you throw another pitch, remember how Bernie Sanders spent practically his entire primary campaign talking about how he was "the revolution". Remember how he talked about how he was the best candidate for the Democrats, how he was the one who deserved the nomination, how he planned to change Washington like no one else could. Now remember how, up until the last month or so of Hillary's national campaign, he did practically nothing to convince his supporters that they should vote for Hillary. Maybe having more of those Bernie Bros voting for Clinton could have helped, or maybe it would have made no difference - but either way, Bernie Sanders did not give enough of a damn to help Clinton when she needed that support, and that had to affect the outcome.

>>412477

>I'm sure we could reach some Republicans if we compromised on abortion and thereby fed women to the right wing machine, or if we compromised on gun rights and pretended that shootings aren't a problem in America, but that's compromising on the ENDS which is even worse than compromising on the means (Which we need to do).

I never said to compromise on everything - just not on principles. We can still try to look for some sort of middle ground where Republicans might come to our side on the issue. Compromise means finding the best way to help the most amount of people. If our principles tell us not to budge on a specific stance, we should not budge. But if you can help people by giving up some ground to pass a law, and such compromise does not violate your principles, you should at least consider moving. As an example: I would stand against a law that raises taxes on the poor and lowers taxes on the wealthy, but I would consider voting for a law that lowers taxes on the poor and leaves the taxes of the wealthy at current rates. I would not consider that a violation of my principles; I should think we would prefer to help the poor than leave them to oblivion.

>Who gives a fuck about Republican voters?

Republicans, for starters. And I hate to tell you this, but Republican voters live in this country, too. We are stuck together. We all must look out for each other, even when some of us refuse to look out for even ourselves. That is how a civilized society works best.

>They should not be the entirety but they should not be excluded either.

Which is why I said name-calling and finger-wagging should be used with precision and rarity. A single, well-timed, well-put-together attack ad can do a lot of damage. But they should not be the focus of a campaign, as they were with Hillary's. (Her campaign ran more TV ads about Trump's bullshit than they did about her actual policy stances.) The left needs to campaign on being a force of change; it does not need to be the party of "I told you so" after the Republicans ruin everything, no matter how good that kind of campaign might make you or I feel.

>"We shouldn't politicize a tragedy!!!" is a right wing tactic to steal initiative from the left and you can't fucking backstab us with it.

We cannot avoiding politicizing tragedies, but the left could stand to use more tact when doing so. In the wake of a mass shooting, painting conservatives as murderers because the GOP supports lax gun control laws will not help the cause of passing stronger gun control laws. (Finding a way to counteract the NRA's detestable bullshit would help, though.) Turning something like Sandy Hook into a "who do we blame" exercise will solve nothing. We have to offer actual solutions for these issues, even if they are not the "best" solutions right now.

>>412479

>Oh and as another point, Stone: there's also the possible angle of "change nothing."

Changing nothing could work, sure. But 2016 proved that "the White working class" can still sway elections. The Democrats largely ignored the concerns of that demographic, and Trump was able to all but sweep them as a demographic because they felt he spoke to them. The left cannot afford to alienate those people any more. Finding a way to address the issues of differing demographics - including White people - without sacrificing one demographic (e.g., trans people) for the sake of others will be the most important part of the DNC's rebuilding phase over the next few years.

Some food for your brain:
//youtube.com/watch?v=XyUcfYsd8n0

>>412481
>more Americans voted for
Which doesn't fucking matter, America is a union of states.

>All this election proved is that you do actually have to
Visit as many states and cities as possible instead of just those with epilepsy medical centers nearby.

>>412487
It goes back to the old truism: If someone draws a swastika, no one thinks it's Hindu.

BLM is already on record saying kill white people, white lives dont matter, whites are filthy subhumans and so on.

Ergo when these kidnappers use the same language...

Speaking of race, we've got some hot and spicy race theories from the Grand Wizard himself! Let's go back to good old bad days!

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/jeff-sessions-1924-immigration/512591/?utm_source=feed

>>412488
>BLM is already on record saying kill white people, white lives dont matter, whites are filthy subhumans and so on.

And Whites are on record killing innocent black people in a church.

Oh wait that was one insect called Dylann Roof.

So mr sessions, does laws against conflicts of interest apply to the president

jefferson: yeah I guess so

under what situation should the

J: I'm not going to answer that

is it a conflict of interest if the president vetoes laws that hurt is business interest since he refuses to use a blind trust

J: I won't answer that

is it a conflict of interest if foreign governments offer him sweet heart deals on his land deals for favors

J: I won't answer that

will you put forward a special prosecutor if there is a conflict of interest

J: I won't answer that.

man, nice to see that swamp getting drained out huh?

He also thinks the president-elect actually committed sexual assault. Which will make things interesting the next time any US official tells another country it should let women drive cars or marry whoever they want etc.

Oh, and a vaccine skeptic is going to be handling vaccines.

What was that again about the IQ levels of various races?

>>412485
>I never said to compromise on everything - just not on principles. We can still try to look for some sort of middle ground where Republicans might come to our side on the issue. Compromise means finding the best way to help the most amount of people. If our principles tell us not to budge on a specific stance, we should not budge. But if you can help people by giving up some ground to pass a law, and such compromise does not violate your principles, you should at least consider moving. As an example: I would stand against a law that raises taxes on the poor and lowers taxes on the wealthy, but I would consider voting for a law that lowers taxes on the poor and leaves the taxes of the wealthy at current rates. I would not consider that a violation of my principles; I should think we would prefer to help the poor than leave them to oblivion.
That's not a compromise, easing the burden on the poor is Democrat policy.
>
Republicans, for starters. And I hate to tell you this, but Republican voters live in this country, too. We are stuck together. We all must look out for each other, even when some of us refuse to look out for even ourselves. That is how a civilized society works best.
Deflection, you're ignoring the point that no, we have no reason to give a fuck what Republican voters think because they will only ever vote Republican. Our base and swing voters are the only ones that matter.
>Which is why I said name-calling and finger-wagging should be used with precision and rarity. A single, well-timed, well-put-together attack ad can do a lot of damage.
Your surrender is noted.
>We cannot avoiding politicizing tragedies, but the left could stand to use more tact when doing so. In the wake of a mass shooting, painting conservatives as murderers because the GOP supports lax gun control laws will not help the cause of passing stronger gun control laws. (Finding a way to counteract the NRA's detestable bullshit would help, though.) Turning something like Sandy Hook into a "who do we blame" exercise will solve nothing. We have to offer actual solutions for these issues, even if they are not the "best" solutions right now.
Blame is part of countering. It has to be made clear that this is the fault of their bad policy.
>Changing nothing could work, sure. But 2016 proved that "the White working class" can still sway elections. The Democrats largely ignored the concerns of that demographic, and Trump was able to all but sweep them as a demographic because they felt he spoke to them. The left cannot afford to alienate those people any more. Finding a way to address the issues of differing demographics - including White people - without sacrificing one demographic (e.g., trans people) for the sake of others will be the most important part of the DNC's rebuilding phase over the next few years.
Which just leads back to my original point: the left didn't alienate these people, they just preferred lies to the truth. They'll suffer the consequences of that and LEARN god damn it.

Some people can ONLY get happier at the expense of others.

Some people CAN get happier at no expense to others.

Some people can ONLY get happier when others are doing better.

The first crowd will always vote republican and cannot be reached. Their neurologies are hardwired for fear of variety and change, hostility and sadism towards the weak or different, and atavistic devotion and unquestioning obeisance towards the strong and similar.

>>412491
>Prima: BLM, an organization, is on record as promoting racism and has members that killed white people.
>Secunda: A white dude killed black people.

Um.... on what level is that a fucking response to the previous statement? It's a complete non sequitur.

>Prima: My pipes are rusted and leaking.
>Secunda: Foxes don't have access to grapes.

>>412493
Yeah shame on America for trying to promote equality.

You people are fucking insane.

>>412495
>liberals want free shit
>vote for it at expense of others
>blame others for being self centered
Yeah it's the charitable conservatives that are evil, not the thieving liberals that reach into other peoples pockets.

>>412496
Trying to explain to liberals that a race, sex, or sexual orientation is not an organization or a nation is like explaining quantum physics to a hummingbird.

It's just not going to work.

These people think they're actually the good guys.... after ruining countless lives of people theyre purporting to help. Nothing they do ever fucking works.

>>412495
I'll never understand the Republican mindset of just not caring about other people.

>>412498
I'll never understand the way Democrats claim to care about other people, but end up fucking them up anyway.

Please stop trying to help us, you are shite at it.

>>412494

>That's not a compromise, easing the burden on the poor is Democrat policy.

So? Political purity tests are rampant these days, and lots of liberals would see the compromise of "ease taxes on the poor, leave the rich alone" as "not liberal enough" because it left the rich alone. All-or-nothing partisan bullshit is a big part of why we are in our current mess. Continuing that kind of bullshit for the sake of feeling superior will not help fix said mess.

>we have no reason to give a fuck what Republican voters think because they will only ever vote Republican

In terms of trying to sway them into voting for liberal politicians and policies? No, we have no reason to care. But the anxieties and fears of Republican voters are real (well, most of them are real). Left unchecked, those fears will…well, I hate to quote Yoda here, but it is true: Their fears will lead to anger, then hate, then suffering. Trump won because he saw the fear and anger of "Middle America" and told them "I will solve all your problems and make you feel awesome and give you all ten-inch dicks". (Paraphrasing there.) Democrats may not be able to convince Republican voters to switch parties, but addressing the woes of those voters alongside the woes of other demographics cannot hurt the progressive cause.

>Your surrender is noted.

I have not surrendered. Do not assume my empathy for other people, even if it is only base-level empathy, means I will let you punch me in the face and get away with it. Perhaps I still retain some of my optimism (I have always been a bit of a dreamer), but I believe a more positive campaign can outdo a campaign full of attack ads and playground-level name-calling.

>Blame is part of countering.

It can only go so far before it devolves into meaningless bickering, though. Blame does not solve problems and, if overused, it creates partisan gridlock. Rather than focusing on who to blame for a tragedy, we should all be focusing on ways to prevent another one from happening. That means addressing lax gun control measures, American gun culture, our broken mental health system, domestic extremist groups, and, yes, economic anxieties.

Preventing another Sandy Hook will not be as simple as enabling tighter background checks on gun purchases - and yelling at Republicans will not help get them on board with policies meant to address gun violence.

>the left didn't alienate these people, they just preferred lies to the truth

Even if those people hate Democrats, they still deserve to live in a society that does not abandon them because of their political beliefs. They deserve to have their (real) fears and anxieties addressed. They deserve base-level empathy, if nothing else.

>>412498

Oh, Republicans care about other people. Really! They do!

Those people just happen to be wealthy White men (and the occasional wealthy White woman).

>>412500
>So? Political purity tests are rampant these days, and lots of liberals would see the compromise of "ease taxes on the poor, leave the rich alone"
Is defunding the left and therefore betraying it, so they'd be right.
>In terms of trying to sway them into voting for liberal politicians and policies? No, we have no reason to care. But the anxieties and fears of Republican voters are real (well, most of them are real). Left unchecked, those fears will…well, I hate to quote Yoda here, but it is true: Their fears will lead to anger, then hate, then suffering. Trump won because he saw the fear and anger of "Middle America" and told them "I will solve all your problems and make you feel awesome and give you all ten-inch dicks". (Paraphrasing there.) Democrats may not be able to convince Republican voters to switch parties, but addressing the woes of those voters alongside the woes of other demographics cannot hurt the progressive cause.
Middle America doesn't matter, as a body. Only the Rust Belt and Florida, which are the betrayals that cost the election.
>I have not surrendered.
You conceded its use and thus the point.
>It can only go so far before it devolves into meaningless bickering, though. Blame does not solve problems and, if overused, it creates partisan gridlock.
Republicans caused partisan gridlock. Giving them an inch is giving them a mile.
>Preventing another Sandy Hook will not be as simple as enabling tighter background checks on gun purchases - and yelling at Republicans will not help get them on board with policies meant to address gun violence.
Nothing will do that, only overpowering them and creating widesweeping measures will.
>Even if those people hate Democrats, they still deserve to live in a society that does not abandon them because of their political beliefs. They deserve to have their (real) fears and anxieties addressed. They deserve base-level empathy, if nothing else.
The Rust Belt does deserve to have its issues addressed, and only we can do that. They will learn this.

>>412502
where can I read all of these

Democratic president that reflects left America is loved by everyone and is a true classy mensch with more charm, wit and warmth than any president in two generations, without a single scandal or moment of low morals.

Republican president that reflects rural, White America is more embarrassing than the last republican president even before his urinauguration.

There are two nations. One modern, urban and positive, one infantile, rural and disgusting.

>FBI applied for FISA warrant to monitor Trump team members over irregular contacts with Russians

You people embraced a White traitor faster than you ever embraced a Black man who worked his way to high office from humble beginnings.

>>412502
Let me guess, Russia told Trump that Hillary let them buy American Uranium stocks.

>they try to buy trump
>trump refuses
Fucking lol the report merely supports the stellar reputation Trump already has.

>>412510
Several departments had to sign that decision. But a person from an inferior culture can't be expected to know this.

>>412509
>Black man who worked his way to high office from humble beginnings.
His white half of the family is rich plantation owners that screwed their slaves. Through them Obama is related to James Madison, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

His fathers side of the family is also very influential for the country they come from, for example Obama Senior was the chief economist in Kenya. As well his stepfathers, Mr. Soetoro was an important geologist working for big oil in Indonesia, and his family was part of the ruling class after colonial rule ended.

A supermajority of people in Obamas family had university degrees and all were upper middle class or upper class in their respective countries.

On top of these advantages, he got a free ride at Harvard.

I don't get where the hell you get these fantasies from. Where did you get the impression that Obama was poor or disadvantaged? Who is telling you these lies?

None of that mattered to Obama's situation, however.

>>412513
But it matters that Trump is related to a racist via a roman peasant over 2000 years ago.

>chief economist in Kenya

whoa, a regular rockefeller

>>412514
No, it matters that he is 100 % a racist. Like his dad.

>>412516
Yeah just like Obama is a Muslim Reptilloid, check your tinfoil at the door.

>>412515
I wish my dad was part of the elite in any country.

Lol the lawyer daring people to look at his passport as denial proof even though that wouldn't prove shit about going to Prague because you can enter the schengen from any country and only show your US passport once.

A quick few points worth noting:

-There are TWO different things floating around at the moment. One is a classified two page addendum to the previous agency release given to Trump and Obama. We do not know the contents save that it concerns election meddling. The 35 page brief, replete with pissing, is an unverified collection of claims collected by an MI6 agent starting last summer. As BuzzFeed, who released it, notes this could be anything, remain calm and await further updates from the government (which is taking it seriously, it came up in Sessions' hearing)

-/pol/ is attacking the release by claiming it's anon prank planned in November and by releasing fake pages of it, believe neither point

-the South Korean government fell last year because it was revealed to be run by a TV psychic so yes, crazier things do happen than a rich man cavorting with prostitutes and working with foreign governments

>>412519
Do you think it's more likely that an MI6 agent collected data on American elections implicating Russia in meddling, then handed the information over to BUZZFEED!

OR

That the blank unsourced pages were typed out by a /b/tard, printed out, snapped with an iphone and sent to buzzfeed who printed them for clickbait like they do anything else.

>>412519
>/pol/ is attacking the release by claiming it's anon prank planned in November and by releasing fake pages of it, believe neither point

Yeah, David Corn wrote about this back in October and we had stuff like the letter Harry Reid sent to Comey warning him about Trump/Russia connections back in August

my thoughts are this: a vanilla sex tape would not do much to Trump by this point; what's there would have to be really, really bad. Like underage boys or Trump screaming Ivanka's name

and even if Trump gets ousted at the end of all this, we still have Pence, and Paul Ryan if HE'S out, and we'll still have bad shit like an anti-vaxxer chairing a vaccine safety panel to deal with

>>412520
Sorry Ivan, your covers aren't working today.

Apparently Comey the Coward was personally handed the documentation by McCain so now we know why the First Bureau of Ivanization turned on Trump.

>>412524
It's like Comey and McConnell are competing to see who's the biggest POS in all this

>>412526
No, they don't, because that's not in the documentation. Neither is the anime one, save it.
>>412527
No I mean he started to actually doing his job when McCain showed up in his office and read him the riot act. It's why the FBI got in line with the CIA and NSA. The FBI is also now applying for FISA warrants for Trump associates en masse.

>>412523
>People in America are desperate for jobs
Unemployment is lower than it's been in more than a decade.

>>412500
If you want to play that game, I can go along with it. But before you throw another pitch, remember how Bernie Sanders spent practically his entire primary campaign talking about how he was "the revolution". Remember how he talked about how he was the best candidate for the Democrats, how he was the one who deserved the nomination, how he planned to change Washington like no one else could. Now remember how, up until the last month or so of Hillary's national campaign, he did practically nothing to convince his supporters that they should vote for Hillary. Maybe having more of those Bernie Bros voting for Clinton could have helped, or maybe it would have made no difference - but either way, Bernie Sanders did not give enough of a damn to help Clinton when she needed that support, and that had to affect the outcome.

No, there's no "maybe" about it. Clinton lost because Democrats stayed home, not because there were more republicans. You've just gotten into a sad sack mentality and are pouting rather than dealing with facts because it's easier to throw yourself a pity party than to actually continue working on a problem that's difficult and relies, to some extent, on random chance.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voters-who-stayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

>>412534
>The point of fact is that the majority of the country hasn't seen the wasteful and expensive "recovery" you're talking about
Actually, it has. That's why the majority of voters voted against Trump.

>>412535
Majority of the country, not majority of the voters.

Clearly you're breeding enough eloi in the megacities, close enough to get all the government aid you want, that the EC has never been more important. It won't stop being important either since the EC is harder to change than the 2nd amendment and you have no hope of doing that.

Enjoy losing elections on this one issue you keep ignoring, it will always be 100% the Democrat partys and voters fault no matter what boogeyman you invent, because you are making a conscious decision to ignore more than half the states.

>>412540
You've lived in a post facts universe all your life.

LEAVE YOUR GATED COMMUNITY SAFE ZONES MOTHERFUCKER

>>412541

I live in rural heartland America, but I suppose that doesn't fit your narrative of folks who disagree with you.

>Press conference

White people elected a child. Everyone else balked, but the Whites wanted an actual child.

>>412546

Well, White Republicans did, anyway. At least in the largest numbers.

Buzzfeed just tacitly confirmed MSM is actually a real thing and that media colludes with one another.

>>412547
>im a good white boy!
>plz dont lynch me massa!
House cracker.

>>412548
>media colludes with one another.

Good. The media will always have enemies and need to work together to destroy stupidity and falsehood.

>>412550

I believe you mean "Trump staffers" cheer. It's okay. You did your best.

Also: IT ALL COMES TUMBLING DOWN

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/mattis-hasc-cancelled-confirmation

>>412552
Oh wow literally
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-press-conference-paid-staffers-media-233496
What is this E3

>>412553

See, that's the difference between Jeb and Trump. Jeb asks people to clap, Trump just pays people to clap.

Reporters really need to get in the habit of asking yes/no questions; Trump clearly can't keep up with multi-part q's and it leaves him free to go on his his rambling non-answer tangents.

If there are future pressers and they aren't just limited to Fox/Breitbart/RT I guess

>>412555

I am convinced that Trump cannot even handle yes/no questions, at least on a consistent basis.

>>412547
>Well, White Republicans did, anyway. At least in the largest numbers.

You don't get out of it that easily. The majority of whites voted for Trump. If you were to separate by age group, millenials didn't, but if you look at whites as a voting block the way people look at black people, hispanics, etc., Trump got the White Vote(TM). It was in fact the entire reason he won--his support among all other groups was laughably low.

>>412539
>Clearly you're breeding enough eloi in the megacities, close enough to get all the government aid you want, that the EC has never been more important.
You really misunderstood that story if you think welfare recipients are the eloi. The eloi were the useless effete with cushy lifestyles who the morlocks used as a food source because they were useless for anything else. They're the billionaire class, not the working class that you strive so hard to demonize.

>>412539
>Majority of the country, not majority of the voters.

The majority of people who cast votes in the elections voted for Hilary, yes. Or are you trying to push this meme that "voters" only refers to members of the Electoral College, and pretending that when people refer to "voters" they're not talking about the millions of Americans who go to the voting booths on Election Day?

God you people rely on meme magic for everything, don't you?

Twilight Zone Reached, FOX DEFENDING CNN
https://twitter.com/yashar/status/819306390888075265

>>412561

Soon you will come to know, when the bullet hits the bone.

>Only idiots who believe there's such a thing as "our" media or "their" media would be surprised by this. The MSM is an engine of globalism, there's nothing diverse or good about it.
And those who doubt, I ask you, why did every media source line up behind Bush twelve years ago?

Globalism is good though. Homogeneous crowds make decisions like dumb cunts, large diverse populations have a shared common wisdom.

Look at Trump. He is bad in every single way and lacks redeeming qualities. And he is liked by people who dislike globalism. Trudeau is an excellent, intelligent man with evidently superior genes and personality, and he appoints only the best people to his cabinet. Trump appoints only men who rape their wives, men who work for lobbyists and banks, and anti-vaxxers. And Trudeau is a globalist.

In short, if you ever hear about a person being raped, killed, or struck with a terrible loss, before you extend any sympathy or help etc. you should ask yourself whether they voted for Clinton or not. Only Clinton voters should be treated like humans.

>>412565
This but unironicly

>>412563
>The majority of the country is counted by state, not by individual voter in each state added together.
This is the stupidest thing you've ever said. And that's saying something. You think you get to redefine words based on what's most convenient to you, but you don't. "Majority of the country" means the majority of people in the country. Not "The majority of states as weighted by their number of representatives and senators combined but with no attention paid to population or resources." If people meant that, they would say it.

>America is a union of states, fuckwad.
A union, not a confederation. Which means it's one single nation, and we are all in the same country, idiot. You *lost* the Civil War, remember? This is not a confederation of sovereign nations under a trade agreement like the EU. It is a single country with a population of ~350 million. Of those 350 million people, most of them voted against Donald Trump.

>>412568
No, only Republicans and Whites' war on unions caused wage stagnation. Plus they made education and healthcare more expensive, hurting aggregate demand. All because they want to hurt gays, bomb sandniggers and make out with zygotes

We need more opioid epidemics, droughts and tornados.

Also, fucking automation. The wage pressure is nine tenths a result of productivity increases reducing demand on labor.

>>412571
Automation isn't a "problem" though, it's ultimately the long term solution to Work being a thing. The problem is adapting a social net to account for that.

>>412573
The social safety net isn't a problem either--we could afford it if we really had a mind to. We've got more than enough resources and more than enough machinepower (and manpower) to provide for everyone in this country. The problem is that there is an entire class of people who would sooner strangle an infant with their bare hands than allow a system where people can live without having to toil to survive unless they were born wealthy.

Many of the people who are in that class are, ironically, the people who would benefit most under that system, as a sort of extrapolation of Crab in the Bucket Mentality.

Man, f TERFs.

>>412578
Given it's you, I'm surprised you limit yourself with the TER qualifier when saying that.

>>412577

It is pretty much the "fuck you, got mine" mentality writ large.

>>412582
Worse than that, it's a "I didn't get mine, so I don't want anyone else to get it either."

>>412579
You'd be surprised, I dated a (trans-inclusive) radfem for over a year.

>>412586
Sure you did

>>412570
>Plus they made education and healthcare more expensive, hurting aggregate demand. All because they want to hurt gays, bomb sandniggers and make out with zygotes
What the fuck are you talking about. None of this is related to wage stagnation.

>>412571
Automation started in 1800s, not 1970s, it has nothing to do with wage stagnation either.

>>412585
>the paper is the wrong size (not legal)
An apt metaphor for the Democratic party.

>>412588
PUTIN hacked CSPAN!!!!!

>>412586

Speakin' of Feminism, guess where it's legal to beat your wife (and your kids, what, it's strong family values!):

http://www.politico.eu/article/domestic-violence-russia-decriminalize/

>>412592
fun fact, there's a Russian saying "he beats her, he loves her"

>>412593

That sounds like something a fundamentalist Christian would say, too.

>>412592
Because they already have an assault law on the books, and doubling or tripling on the same crime makes no sense. They even explain it in the article, if you beat your kid you get prison time, but if someone else beats your kid they get tried under the assault law (which is administrative). It makes no fucking sense.

Only in common law can you get charged 100 times for one crime, or have laws which don't apply the same to everyone.

>A Change.org petition opposing the new law gathered over 174,000 signatures after it was launched Tuesday.
>libshits actually think clicking a button on a random website is going to change russian duma decision
It's not even change.gov, it's change.org. It doesn't even have the vague threat of political pressure.

Up to six Goldman Sachs alumni in the Trump administration now

>>412600
I bet some of them are McDonalds or newspaper delivery alumni.

Some might even be lemonade stand alumni, the fucking cunts.

>>412599
Got to find ways to make the lives of criminals who attack women less burdensome, eh? It'd be just terrible if wife-beaters were inconvenienced by having an alternate, greater charge for spousal abuse.

After all, it's not like the context of assaulting someone in their own home and while under the trust of a domestic life makes an assault against one's spouse worse than an assault against a stranger, nor like domestic abuse creates different issues that aren't adequately addressed with assault laws.

Oh wait, it's exactly like that. My bad, I must have been won over by /pol/-kun's "brilliant" arguments.

>>412601
your arguments are getting more and more nonsensical as the days go by

If you beat someone that lives with you, you're not just hurting them physically but ruining their home as well. That means you're not just violent, but willing to make someone's life dysfunctional and hurt someone that has been good to you. Extra charge.

>>412599
>if you beat your kid you get prison time, but if someone else beats your kid they get tried under the assault law
Dang, it's almost like parents are expected to keep their children away from neigbors who are known to be violent, but can't act as parents at all if they don't live with their own children.

>>412603
None of these people actually work at Goldman Sachs, they just used to. Goldman Sachs is a huge company with millions of employees, almost everyone who finished business is going to work for a company as retarded as that at some point. These people got fired from Goldman Sachs... It's like saying an ex McDonalds burger flipper is somehow going to be a secret plant for McDonalds.

The difference here is that Hillary is taking money directly from Goldman Sachs, the corporation.

>>412602
So you think if a a husband hits a wife he should be charged with a higher crime, than if some random person does the same thing?

Why are you trying to find ways to make the lives of criminals who attack women less burdensome, eh?

>After all, it's not like the context of assaulting someone in their own home and while under the trust of a domestic life makes an assault against one's spouse worse than an assault against a stranger, nor like domestic abuse creates different issues that aren't adequately addressed with assault laws.
This is the funniest thing I've ever read. Feelings don't come into law, I can't feel safe at a park, get assaulted, and then expect the criminal get extra punishment because I felt safe at that park.

You didn't even think it through, what about homeless people? Do they not get the protection of your shitty low-IQ idea? What about people who aren't married but live together, is their home feeling less safe? Do they feel less trust in their domestic life?

>>412611

>None of these people actually work at Goldman Sachs, they just used to. […] It's like saying an ex McDonalds burger flipper is somehow going to be a secret plant for McDonalds.

A burger flipper fired from his local McDonald's does not have nearly the same kind of power and influence within society and politics as a former Goldman Sachs executive. The situations have a vast power differential that you ignore in a naked (and worthless) attempt to bolster your argument.

>The difference here is that Hillary is taking money directly from Goldman Sachs, the corporation.

Technically, the former executives who are now part of Trump's cabinet also took money from Goldman Sachs.

>you think if a a husband hits a wife he should be charged with a higher crime, than if some random person does the same thing?

Yes.

An attack by a complete stranger is a frightening experience. It can be as damaging, physically and psychologically, as an incident of domestic violence. But there is key difference between the two: Domestic violence often leads to further instances of domestic violence.

Men and women who have escaped abusive relationships will tell you that the average abusive relationship does not just end after a single act of violence. Physical abuse can be, and often is, repeated for the sake of making the abused party docile and afraid of acting "out of turn". When physical abuse is combined with psychological abuse, it can create a situation where an abused person believes escape is nigh-impossible. A random attack by a complete stranger in a public place does not, on its own, lead to that sort of situation, no matter how traumatic the attack may be.

As was said, domestic violence creates issues that simple assault laws do not address. Revoking domestic violence laws means revoking policies and systems that exist to help victims of domestic violence escape their horrible situations. What good can come of that?

I can't wait for the Republicans to talk about how they bravely and patriotically destroyed Obamacare while the spiteful and evil Democrats destroyed the ACA, and then for Republican voters to believe this.

>>412612
Technically millions of grandmas in stock with Goldman Sachs took money from it too, retard. The reason why GS is evil is the political influence they have by buying politicians, and using that to siphon tax money. There is no way this could be possible with Trump, and I'm loling at the fact that GS lost hundreds of millions on Shillary.

Also I am fully clothed you sick bastard.

>But there is key difference between the two: Domestic violence often leads to further instances of domestic violence.
No it doesn't, what the hell are you talking about? If you report the first instance and they go to jail, how does it continue? Even on the off chance that the wife was kept chained to a bed or something, and she eventually reported it, all of the instances of domestic abuse would be counted as separate in court.

>that exist to help victims of domestic violence escape
How does sentencing a dude twice help a domestic violence victim escape?

Instead of being a fucking retard and doubling down on assault charges, why not simply create an agency whose purpose is resettling, providing mental health care for, or otherwise caring for domestic violence victims.

Like all liberals you have good intentions but you are so fucking retarded and full of your own self-righteous fart huffing that you are willing to hurt everyone involved as well as the entire system of law within which you reside just to perform ZERO BENEFIT for the actual victim.

>>412614

>Technically millions of grandmas in stock with Goldman Sachs took money from it too, retard.

Again: Those grandmothers do not have the same sociopolitical clout as former Goldman Sachs executives.

>The reason why GS is evil is the political influence they have by buying politicians, and using that to siphon tax money.

And now that former Goldman Sachs executives are either already in or soon to be in important positions of power within the Trump administration, said former executives can look out for their former company (and their rich friends therein).

>There is no way this could be possible with Trump

You lack both the clairvoyance to see that far into the future and the power to force Trump into keeping any sort of promise he made during his campaign.

>If you report the first instance and they go to jail, how does it continue?

This tells me that you have never heard testimonials from long-term domestic abuse victims. Victims can (and often do) drop charges against their abusers so they can, in their mind, avoid making the abuse worse. Even if the charges are not dropped, an abuser can sometimes charm their way into a lesser sentence - a slap on the wrist, as opposed to a stiff jail sentence - then go right back to abusing their victim once the sentence is over. As I said, a single act of random violence does not often lead these kinds of abusive situations. We treat domestic violence differently because it can (and does) often lead to those situations.

>How does sentencing a dude twice help a domestic violence victim escape?

An abuse victim may lack the resources - money, time, or even a support network of relatives and friends - that can help them leave an abusive situation. Longer sentences for domestic abusers can give victims more time to gather resources (some from the state, some from their support network) that will ultimately help them escape the situation. Court orders and name changes are not given out for free, after all.

>why not simply create an agency whose purpose is resettling, providing mental health care for, or otherwise caring for domestic violence victims

Victims services agencies do exist, but they themselves may lack the resources to do all of those things - and more - for every victim of a violent crime, domestic abuse or otherwise. If you want such agencies to be more efficient and do more for victims, ask your politicians to funnel more money into those agencies.

>you are willing to hurt everyone involved as well as the entire system of law within which you reside just to perform ZERO BENEFIT for the actual victim

You have failed to make a case against treating domestic abuse as worse than "regular" assault. You have not proven how the benefits of domestic violence legislation are outweighed by any potential "harm". If you want me to get behind your idea - if you want to persuade me into giving the smallest of fucks about it - you will have to do better than calling me names and emphasizing your text.

>>412614
>good intentions but you are so fucking retarded and full of your own self-righteous fart huffing
top heh
>homeless man
>leftist solution - take money from working class causing half of them to become homeless; make a womens shelter/non functioning website/community fitness center <insert failed program here> with the money
>leftist solution - demolish the system and replace it with anarchy, feudalism, communism, <insert failed system here>
>right wing solution: employ him. he gets money and experience out of it, he can then leverage his experience to earn even more money.

>>412618
>>good intentions but you are so fucking retarded and full of your own self-righteous fart huffing

And here we see more evidence that this is just a kid who mistook South Park for erudite polysci.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/betsy-devos-omitted-125000-political-donation-from-senate-disclosure-form/2017/01/13/7a82c368-d9ba-11e6-9f9f-5cdb4b7f8dd7_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.e0adba43e1b6

>>412618
>>right wing solution: employ him. he gets money and experience out of it, he can then leverage his experience to earn even more money.
How many people have you employed, exactly?

>>412621
>Hope your entire family dies tomorrow. Idiot.
Why are you here?

At least try to be civil.

>>412621
Because a homeless person is unemployable. They smell bad, look horrible, clothes all fucked up, and don't even have a phone to get called back on. Often they have health or mental issues that they can't pay treatment for.

People in poverty have obstacles to employment.

It would be better to use tax money to help them get rid of these obstacles, instead of using tax money on HUD or so Obama can blow $2 million on each terrorist he trains in Syria.

>>412625
>People in poverty have obstacles to employment.
Unrelated by related:

Is plus4chan for or against the decriminalization (or lowering of penalty) for the possession of the most common illicit drugs?
In most western countries I've seen, users of these drugs have many major obstacles in entering the workforce and recovering from addiction. The harsh penalties in some countries even drive users into near poverty, so that they experience similar employment difficulties to homeless people.

On the other hand, drug are bad okay?.

>>412626
Normal guy here, it would depend on:
1. danger of drug to physical health, such as cardiovascular damage by cocaine, krokodil... etc.

2. danger of drug to mental health, such as MDMA damage is visible 12 years later in the brain.

Even the worst drugs, like the ones mentioned above, should be legal. As long as their health effects are researched, and the user is waned of them on each packaging.

3. danger of drug impacting non-users, such as smoking drugs being banned in public places.

Also drug tests with one strike rule, if you drive high on weed you lose your license forever. Also I'd like brain scans for people who want to vote, if you have brain damage from drug use, fuck you, you don't get to choose who leads the country.

>inb4 alcohol and tobacco
Same applies for them.