Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Incompetence

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:57:18 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
http://www.nytimes.com...

Democrats need to read this -- because if a conservative columnist can notice the difference, then their problem is a serious one.

Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton has the breadth of talent of the last two democratic presidents. The first one is personable but immoderate. The second is moderate but not personable.... almost socially incompetent, running a lifeless campaign, with meager propositions and artificial smiles. Where is the new Bill Clinton? Where is the new Barack Obama? How is it there are only two viable options, and the party started out with 5 or 6, while the the republicans had about triple that amount?

It's not even as if there's no talent in the party. Elizabeth Warren would have been a far more politically competent leader of the left-wing populist campaign than Bernie. What about rising stars like Julian Castro and Cory Booker? We have nothing.... reasonable liberals everywhere lament, because tonight we're confronted with the haunting proposition that the next president might actually be a Republican.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:04:26 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 2:57:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

Democrats need to read this -- because if a conservative columnist can notice the difference, then their problem is a serious one.

Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton has the breadth of talent of the last two democratic presidents. The first one is personable but immoderate. The second is moderate but not personable.... almost socially incompetent, running a lifeless campaign, with meager propositions and artificial smiles. Where is the new Bill Clinton? Where is the new Barack Obama? How is it there are only two viable options, and the party started out with 5 or 6, while the the republicans had about triple that amount?

It's not even as if there's no talent in the party. Elizabeth Warren would have been a far more politically competent leader of the left-wing populist campaign than Bernie. What about rising stars like Julian Castro and Cory Booker? We have nothing.... reasonable liberals everywhere lament, because tonight we're confronted with the haunting proposition that the next president might actually be a Republican...

Well the way the system is rigged, each party agrees to throw the election every 8 years or so. And the establishment on both sides gets to pick the president.

Trump just came in a fcked it all up for everyone.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:08:37 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Julian Castro is my least favorite person mentioned in this OP by a huge margin. He's faker than Hillary.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:13:11 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 2:57:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

Democrats need to read this -- because if a conservative columnist can notice the difference, then their problem is a serious one.

Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton has the breadth of talent of the last two democratic presidents. The first one is personable but immoderate. The second is moderate but not personable.... almost socially incompetent, running a lifeless campaign, with meager propositions and artificial smiles. Where is the new Bill Clinton? Where is the new Barack Obama? How is it there are only two viable options, and the party started out with 5 or 6, while the the republicans had about triple that amount?

It's not even as if there's no talent in the party. Elizabeth Warren would have been a far more politically competent leader of the left-wing populist campaign than Bernie. What about rising stars like Julian Castro and Cory Booker? We have nothing.... reasonable liberals everywhere lament, because tonight we're confronted with the haunting proposition that the next president might actually be a Republican.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com...

All shall love him, and despair.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:15:37 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
And there's huge reason for Sanders over Warren this year, that you don't consider. And frankly, I don't agree that she'd do better this cycle.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:18:14 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:15:37 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
And there's huge reason for Sanders over Warren this year, that you don't consider. And frankly, I don't agree that she'd do better this cycle.

And what would that be, pray tell
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:29:22 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:08:37 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Julian Castro is my least favorite person mentioned in this OP by a huge margin. He's faker than Hillary.

Totally agree. I have no idea why Clinton is such a fan of this guy
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:30:07 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:18:14 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:15:37 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
And there's huge reason for Sanders over Warren this year, that you don't consider. And frankly, I don't agree that she'd do better this cycle.

And what would that be, pray tell

1. She'll still be around (in politics) in eight years.
2. Bernie does better among young males.
3. She doesn't rally populist disconent better than Sanders, but she does better among those not as left as the two.

This is why she should be the candidate later.

The stronger Bernie builds the young, angry populism - the more Warren will be able to capitalize on next Primary cycle. While it may have appeared when Sanders first announced that Warren had better support from the populist wing - that was only because more people were familiar with Warren at the time. Now, the breadth of his issues is larger than Warren. If Sanders gets the nomination against, say, Trump this year - he will win. If he really wants to make the best possible move, he'll select Warren as a running mate - who would have the benefit of the candidates who were quicker to draw to Sanders than her (young white males), and women who voted Clinton (40s+).

So this is a matter of build-up. Sanders is good for that - very good. Warren will be able to work better, but she'll best be able to have the position to succeed with Sanders now.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:30:46 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 2:57:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

Democrats need to read this -- because if a conservative columnist can notice the difference, then their problem is a serious one.

Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton has the breadth of talent of the last two democratic presidents. The first one is personable but immoderate. The second is moderate but not personable.... almost socially incompetent, running a lifeless campaign, with meager propositions and artificial smiles. Where is the new Bill Clinton? Where is the new Barack Obama? How is it there are only two viable options, and the party started out with 5 or 6, while the the republicans had about triple that amount?

It's not even as if there's no talent in the party. Elizabeth Warren would have been a far more politically competent leader of the left-wing populist campaign than Bernie. What about rising stars like Julian Castro and Cory Booker? We have nothing.... reasonable liberals everywhere lament, because tonight we're confronted with the haunting proposition that the next president might actually be a Republican.

The Democratic party doesn't have a clown car full of fools, and you think that is a negative? Yea, we have a good bench, but we are not a joke. We could have run Warren, Biden, and a healthy number of others.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:34:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:29:22 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:08:37 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Julian Castro is my least favorite person mentioned in this OP by a huge margin. He's faker than Hillary.

Totally agree. I have no idea why Clinton is such a fan of this guy

Because she believes that gimmicky sh!t like picking an effeminate latino guy is going to help her with both the latinos and the gays.
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:36:00 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:34:55 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:29:22 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:08:37 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Julian Castro is my least favorite person mentioned in this OP by a huge margin. He's faker than Hillary.

Totally agree. I have no idea why Clinton is such a fan of this guy

Because she believes that gimmicky sh!t like picking an effeminate latino guy is going to help her with both the latinos and the gays.

There's no reason to pick a Latino when the most likely GOP candidate is Trump.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:37:50 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:34:55 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:29:22 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:08:37 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Julian Castro is my least favorite person mentioned in this OP by a huge margin. He's faker than Hillary.

Totally agree. I have no idea why Clinton is such a fan of this guy

Because she believes that gimmicky sh!t like picking an effeminate latino guy is going to help her with both the latinos and the gays.

Yup
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:38:22 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:36:00 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:34:55 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:29:22 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:08:37 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Julian Castro is my least favorite person mentioned in this OP by a huge margin. He's faker than Hillary.

Totally agree. I have no idea why Clinton is such a fan of this guy

Because she believes that gimmicky sh!t like picking an effeminate latino guy is going to help her with both the latinos and the gays.

There's no reason to pick a Latino when the most likely GOP candidate is Trump.

I don't think the Clinton people have awoken to that reality...
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:41:55 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:38:22 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:36:00 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:34:55 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:29:22 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:08:37 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Julian Castro is my least favorite person mentioned in this OP by a huge margin. He's faker than Hillary.

Totally agree. I have no idea why Clinton is such a fan of this guy

Because she believes that gimmicky sh!t like picking an effeminate latino guy is going to help her with both the latinos and the gays.

There's no reason to pick a Latino when the most likely GOP candidate is Trump.

I don't think the Clinton people have awoken to that reality...

What's ironic is that she'd more or less seal it as the candidate if she chose Sanders. But she'll try to lock down what has already been locked down for decades.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:46:20 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:41:55 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:38:22 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:36:00 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:34:55 AM, YYW wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:29:22 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:08:37 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Julian Castro is my least favorite person mentioned in this OP by a huge margin. He's faker than Hillary.

Totally agree. I have no idea why Clinton is such a fan of this guy

Because she believes that gimmicky sh!t like picking an effeminate latino guy is going to help her with both the latinos and the gays.

There's no reason to pick a Latino when the most likely GOP candidate is Trump.

I don't think the Clinton people have awoken to that reality...

What's ironic is that she'd more or less seal it as the candidate if she chose Sanders. But she'll try to lock down what has already been locked down for decades.

I agree... but she won't... too much pride.

Pride cometh before the fall...
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:46:56 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 2:57:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

Democrats need to read this -- because if a conservative columnist can notice the difference, then their problem is a serious one.

Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton has the breadth of talent of the last two democratic presidents. The first one is personable but immoderate. The second is moderate but not personable.... almost socially incompetent, running a lifeless campaign, with meager propositions and artificial smiles. Where is the new Bill Clinton? Where is the new Barack Obama? How is it there are only two viable options, and the party started out with 5 or 6, while the the republicans had about triple that amount?

It's not even as if there's no talent in the party. Elizabeth Warren would have been a far more politically competent leader of the left-wing populist campaign than Bernie. What about rising stars like Julian Castro and Cory Booker? We have nothing.... reasonable liberals everywhere lament, because tonight we're confronted with the haunting proposition that the next president might actually be a Republican.

This is so misguided it doesn't even merit acknowledging.
Tsar of DDO
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:50:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
All in all, Sanders does everything he needs to do. He and Hillary aren't incompetent by any measure as candidates, and Sanders has only made a Democratic victory more likely, with a lot more younger citizens registering as Democrats, as well as a lot more independents.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:59:52 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:50:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
All in all, Sanders does everything he needs to do. He and Hillary aren't incompetent by any measure as candidates, and Sanders has only made a Democratic victory more likely, with a lot more younger citizens registering as Democrats, as well as a lot more independents.

Obviously neither is incompetent in totum, but each is missing something critically important for mass appeal -- Hillary just doesn't have the talent to relate with people or inspire them, and Bernie is too much in the fringe, and also runs an excessively tempered campaign; if he lets Hillary survive through scandal after scandal and won't even really directly and consistently attack her on her connections to wallstreet (his attacks are timid and oblique), then how will he fair against someone like Trump? Kindness doesn't pay in politics.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 4:00:43 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:59:52 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:50:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
All in all, Sanders does everything he needs to do. He and Hillary aren't incompetent by any measure as candidates, and Sanders has only made a Democratic victory more likely, with a lot more younger citizens registering as Democrats, as well as a lot more independents.

Obviously neither is incompetent in totum, but each is missing something critically important for mass appeal -- Hillary just doesn't have the talent to relate with people or inspire them, and Bernie is too much in the fringe, and also runs an excessively tempered campaign; if he lets Hillary survive through scandal after scandal and won't even really directly and consistently attack her on her connections to wallstreet (his attacks are timid and oblique), then how will he fair against someone like Trump? Kindness doesn't pay in politics.

fare*
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 4:01:41 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:59:52 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:50:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
All in all, Sanders does everything he needs to do. He and Hillary aren't incompetent by any measure as candidates, and Sanders has only made a Democratic victory more likely, with a lot more younger citizens registering as Democrats, as well as a lot more independents.

Obviously neither is incompetent in totum, but each is missing something critically important for mass appeal -- Hillary just doesn't have the talent to relate with people or inspire them, and Bernie is too much in the fringe, and also runs an excessively tempered campaign; if he lets Hillary survive through scandal after scandal and won't even really directly and consistently attack her on her connections to wallstreet (his attacks are timid and oblique), then how will he fair against someone like Trump? Kindness doesn't pay in politics.

I don't think he'd give Trump the same benefit.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 4:32:15 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 2:57:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

Democrats need to read this -- because if a conservative columnist can notice the difference, then their problem is a serious one.

Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton has the breadth of talent of the last two democratic presidents. The first one is personable but immoderate. The second is moderate but not personable.... almost socially incompetent, running a lifeless campaign, with meager propositions and artificial smiles. Where is the new Bill Clinton? Where is the new Barack Obama? How is it there are only two viable options, and the party started out with 5 or 6, while the the republicans had about triple that amount?

It's not even as if there's no talent in the party. Elizabeth Warren would have been a far more politically competent leader of the left-wing populist campaign than Bernie. What about rising stars like Julian Castro and Cory Booker? We have nothing.... reasonable liberals everywhere lament, because tonight we're confronted with the haunting proposition that the next president might actually be a Republican.

Possibly one of the most damaging things to happen to the left in America is the fact that they've lost the support of humor. During the resurgence of the left, humor played a huge role in undermining the authority of the right, and in winning young people over to the Democrat side with its wide, almost universal appeal. It is, in a word, disarming. In the last few years, however, leftist strongholds have become hostile to humor, and are in turn finding themselves victimized by it. What the left considers 'funny' has little to no appeal outside of the left. It's essentially become an echo chamber of people laughing at their own corny inside jokes. That insurgent, subversive humor which Southpark epitomizes is bleeding over to the right as hardcore progressive movements take to dissecting and policing speech to such a degree that it even alienates fairly mainstream and moderate comics like Jerry Seinfeld. The fact that the moderates and establishment are bowing and scraping to these people instead of saying 'hey, you're obviously too stupid to understand the concept of humor' is an incredibly ill-conceived move in the long run. It's why their candidates come across as dry and scripted, and it's why Trump has such an appeal: he has his finger on that particular vein of American life, and is tapping into it with wild abandon.

Bill Clinton was snarky, irreverent, and quick-witted. In a word, he was funny, and it contributed immensely to his appeal. Democrats aren't allowed to be funny anymore; you won't see another Bill Clinton anytime soon. Every statement is put under a microscope and subjected to a social justice litmus test, and the costs of failing that test during a primary is too high. Part of the reason that Trump is so outrageous in his actions is because he recognizes that half-measures are useless: the censorious and oversensitive are only satisfied with total obedience to the narrative, and the rebellious respond best to a complete rejection of 'political correctness'. The Republican establishment candidates are trying to walk that tightrope between 'hard truth' and 'sensitivity', and are paying the price for it at the polls.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 4:58:21 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 4:32:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

I think this perception is inaccurate, and I'm not sure what it's based on (except if you're projecting Hillary's qualities unto the party itself). Humor has been a component of Obama's rhetorical arsenal since he took office (the video highlights a few of those moments). I'm sure you can appreciate the distinction between crass and tasteful humor (tasteful not meaning tightly controlled or, as you like to say, "genteel" ... but meaning apropos) ... so it should be fairly easy to see how Trump's is of the former rank.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 5:00:22 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:30:46 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/10/2016 2:57:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

Democrats need to read this -- because if a conservative columnist can notice the difference, then their problem is a serious one.

Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton has the breadth of talent of the last two democratic presidents. The first one is personable but immoderate. The second is moderate but not personable.... almost socially incompetent, running a lifeless campaign, with meager propositions and artificial smiles. Where is the new Bill Clinton? Where is the new Barack Obama? How is it there are only two viable options, and the party started out with 5 or 6, while the the republicans had about triple that amount?

It's not even as if there's no talent in the party. Elizabeth Warren would have been a far more politically competent leader of the left-wing populist campaign than Bernie. What about rising stars like Julian Castro and Cory Booker? We have nothing.... reasonable liberals everywhere lament, because tonight we're confronted with the haunting proposition that the next president might actually be a Republican.

The Democratic party doesn't have a clown car full of fools, and you think that is a negative? Yea, we have a good bench,

*giggles*

but we are not a joke. We could have run Warren, Biden, and a healthy number of others.

I still would have killed to have Biden throw his hat into the ring. Match Hillary in experience and not seem as lifeless as a worn out Macy's mannequin while also having far more minor scandals? He'd be a force to reckon with
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 5:12:03 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 5:00:22 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:30:46 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/10/2016 2:57:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

Democrats need to read this -- because if a conservative columnist can notice the difference, then their problem is a serious one.

Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton has the breadth of talent of the last two democratic presidents. The first one is personable but immoderate. The second is moderate but not personable.... almost socially incompetent, running a lifeless campaign, with meager propositions and artificial smiles. Where is the new Bill Clinton? Where is the new Barack Obama? How is it there are only two viable options, and the party started out with 5 or 6, while the the republicans had about triple that amount?

It's not even as if there's no talent in the party. Elizabeth Warren would have been a far more politically competent leader of the left-wing populist campaign than Bernie. What about rising stars like Julian Castro and Cory Booker? We have nothing.... reasonable liberals everywhere lament, because tonight we're confronted with the haunting proposition that the next president might actually be a Republican.

The Democratic party doesn't have a clown car full of fools, and you think that is a negative? Yea, we have a good bench,

*giggles*

but we are not a joke. We could have run Warren, Biden, and a healthy number of others.

I still would have killed to have Biden throw his hat into the ring. Match Hillary in experience and not seem as lifeless as a worn out Macy's mannequin while also having far more minor scandals? He'd be a force to reckon with

I really do like Biden. As much as I dig Sanders, if it would have been the three of them in the race, so a raft of good reasons I would be talking Biden every day.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 5:34:20 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 5:12:03 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/10/2016 5:00:22 AM, imabench wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:30:46 AM, TBR wrote:
At 2/10/2016 2:57:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

Democrats need to read this -- because if a conservative columnist can notice the difference, then their problem is a serious one.

Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton has the breadth of talent of the last two democratic presidents. The first one is personable but immoderate. The second is moderate but not personable.... almost socially incompetent, running a lifeless campaign, with meager propositions and artificial smiles. Where is the new Bill Clinton? Where is the new Barack Obama? How is it there are only two viable options, and the party started out with 5 or 6, while the the republicans had about triple that amount?

It's not even as if there's no talent in the party. Elizabeth Warren would have been a far more politically competent leader of the left-wing populist campaign than Bernie. What about rising stars like Julian Castro and Cory Booker? We have nothing.... reasonable liberals everywhere lament, because tonight we're confronted with the haunting proposition that the next president might actually be a Republican.

The Democratic party doesn't have a clown car full of fools, and you think that is a negative? Yea, we have a good bench,

*giggles*

but we are not a joke. We could have run Warren, Biden, and a healthy number of others.

I still would have killed to have Biden throw his hat into the ring. Match Hillary in experience and not seem as lifeless as a worn out Macy's mannequin while also having far more minor scandals? He'd be a force to reckon with

I really do like Biden. As much as I dig Sanders, if it would have been the three of them in the race, so a raft of good reasons I would be talking Biden every day.

I sorta hope he runs for Governor of Delaware just cause I wanna see him stay in politics. Obama has earned his stripes so he's free to ride off into the sunset, but I love me some Biden shenanigans
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 1:36:40 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 4:32:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/10/2016 2:57:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

Democrats need to read this -- because if a conservative columnist can notice the difference, then their problem is a serious one.

Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton has the breadth of talent of the last two democratic presidents. The first one is personable but immoderate. The second is moderate but not personable.... almost socially incompetent, running a lifeless campaign, with meager propositions and artificial smiles. Where is the new Bill Clinton? Where is the new Barack Obama? How is it there are only two viable options, and the party started out with 5 or 6, while the the republicans had about triple that amount?

It's not even as if there's no talent in the party. Elizabeth Warren would have been a far more politically competent leader of the left-wing populist campaign than Bernie. What about rising stars like Julian Castro and Cory Booker? We have nothing.... reasonable liberals everywhere lament, because tonight we're confronted with the haunting proposition that the next president might actually be a Republican.

Possibly one of the most damaging things to happen to the left in America is the fact that they've lost the support of humor. During the resurgence of the left, humor played a huge role in undermining the authority of the right, and in winning young people over to the Democrat side with its wide, almost universal appeal. It is, in a word, disarming. In the last few years, however, leftist strongholds have become hostile to humor, and are in turn finding themselves victimized by it. What the left considers 'funny' has little to no appeal outside of the left. It's essentially become an echo chamber of people laughing at their own corny inside jokes. That insurgent, subversive humor which Southpark epitomizes is bleeding over to the right as hardcore progressive movements take to dissecting and policing speech to such a degree that it even alienates fairly mainstream and moderate comics like Jerry Seinfeld. The fact that the moderates and establishment are bowing and scraping to these people instead of saying 'hey, you're obviously too stupid to understand the concept of humor' is an incredibly ill-conceived move in the long run. It's why their candidates come across as dry and scripted, and it's why Trump has such an appeal: he has his finger on that particular vein of American life, and is tapping into it with wild abandon.

Bill Clinton was snarky, irreverent, and quick-witted. In a word, he was funny, and it contributed immensely to his appeal. Democrats aren't allowed to be funny anymore; you won't see another Bill Clinton anytime soon. Every statement is put under a microscope and subjected to a social justice litmus test, and the costs of failing that test during a primary is too high. Part of the reason that Trump is so outrageous in his actions is because he recognizes that half-measures are useless: the censorious and oversensitive are only satisfied with total obedience to the narrative, and the rebellious respond best to a complete rejection of 'political correctness'. The Republican establishment candidates are trying to walk that tightrope between 'hard truth' and 'sensitivity', and are paying the price for it at the polls.

I almost agree with most of this. Everyone is too up-tight, too concerned about saying the wrong or the politically incorrect thing, and too worried about being called a racist, bigot, homophobe, etc.

But when you say "the left lost its sense of humor" what's going on is that progressives became PC nazis, which is hurting the party, and they're losing socially conservative democrats in droves.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 1:52:47 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
Oh, and Frank Brunai is presently, and has consistently been wrong on every issue with regard to the election he has opined on. He is literally so out of touch with reality that only the New York Times could employ him.

He was on CNN this morning... hilarious. "We don't know what the ceiling on Trump's support is." he says. That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. We never know what the ceiling on any candidate's support is until the actual election! (Surprise, dumb@ss! Wake up and smell the coffee!)
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 2:40:10 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 4:32:15 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/10/2016 2:57:18 AM, 000ike wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com...

Democrats need to read this -- because if a conservative columnist can notice the difference, then their problem is a serious one.

Neither Bernie Sanders nor Hillary Clinton has the breadth of talent of the last two democratic presidents. The first one is personable but immoderate. The second is moderate but not personable.... almost socially incompetent, running a lifeless campaign, with meager propositions and artificial smiles. Where is the new Bill Clinton? Where is the new Barack Obama? How is it there are only two viable options, and the party started out with 5 or 6, while the the republicans had about triple that amount?

It's not even as if there's no talent in the party. Elizabeth Warren would have been a far more politically competent leader of the left-wing populist campaign than Bernie. What about rising stars like Julian Castro and Cory Booker? We have nothing.... reasonable liberals everywhere lament, because tonight we're confronted with the haunting proposition that the next president might actually be a Republican.

Possibly one of the most damaging things to happen to the left in America is the fact that they've lost the support of humor. During the resurgence of the left, humor played a huge role in undermining the authority of the right, and in winning young people over to the Democrat side with its wide, almost universal appeal. It is, in a word, disarming. In the last few years, however, leftist strongholds have become hostile to humor, and are in turn finding themselves victimized by it. What the left considers 'funny' has little to no appeal outside of the left. It's essentially become an echo chamber of people laughing at their own corny inside jokes. That insurgent, subversive humor which Southpark epitomizes is bleeding over to the right as hardcore progressive movements take to dissecting and policing speech to such a degree that it even alienates fairly mainstream and moderate comics like Jerry Seinfeld. The fact that the moderates and establishment are bowing and scraping to these people instead of saying 'hey, you're obviously too stupid to understand the concept of humor' is an incredibly ill-conceived move in the long run. It's why their candidates come across as dry and scripted, and it's why Trump has such an appeal: he has his finger on that particular vein of American life, and is tapping into it with wild abandon.

Bill Clinton was snarky, irreverent, and quick-witted. In a word, he was funny, and it contributed immensely to his appeal. Democrats aren't allowed to be funny anymore; you won't see another Bill Clinton anytime soon. Every statement is put under a microscope and subjected to a social justice litmus test, and the costs of failing that test during a primary is too high. Part of the reason that Trump is so outrageous in his actions is because he recognizes that half-measures are useless: the censorious and oversensitive are only satisfied with total obedience to the narrative, and the rebellious respond best to a complete rejection of 'political correctness'. The Republican establishment candidates are trying to walk that tightrope between 'hard truth' and 'sensitivity', and are paying the price for it at the polls.

Yah, you could tell in this thread.

http://www.debate.org...

At 2/5/2016 2:55:06 AM, Reformist wrote:
I want to hear all the jokes you guys know

G.W. Bush
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:51:17 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:59:52 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:50:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
All in all, Sanders does everything he needs to do. He and Hillary aren't incompetent by any measure as candidates, and Sanders has only made a Democratic victory more likely, with a lot more younger citizens registering as Democrats, as well as a lot more independents.

Obviously neither is incompetent in totum, but each is missing something critically important for mass appeal -- Hillary just doesn't have the talent to relate with people or inspire them, and Bernie is too much in the fringe, and also runs an excessively tempered campaign; if he lets Hillary survive through scandal after scandal and won't even really directly and consistently attack her on her connections to wallstreet (his attacks are timid and oblique), then how will he fair against someone like Trump? Kindness doesn't pay in politics.

You're mad at Sanders for actually being better than petty politics? Amazing. I actually can barely comprehend that. He is a model.

And attacking Hillary over the emails would have been a poor political move.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2016 3:58:39 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 2/10/2016 3:51:17 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:59:52 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 2/10/2016 3:50:52 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
All in all, Sanders does everything he needs to do. He and Hillary aren't incompetent by any measure as candidates, and Sanders has only made a Democratic victory more likely, with a lot more younger citizens registering as Democrats, as well as a lot more independents.

Obviously neither is incompetent in totum, but each is missing something critically important for mass appeal -- Hillary just doesn't have the talent to relate with people or inspire them, and Bernie is too much in the fringe, and also runs an excessively tempered campaign; if he lets Hillary survive through scandal after scandal and won't even really directly and consistently attack her on her connections to wallstreet (his attacks are timid and oblique), then how will he fair against someone like Trump? Kindness doesn't pay in politics.

You're mad at Sanders for actually being better than petty politics? Amazing. I actually can barely comprehend that. He is a model.

And attacking Hillary over the emails would have been a poor political move.

Kindness pays in politics only if the media does its job.