Why fight over her? She had a go, lost by the rules (even if she got more votes, still lost by the rules), didn't attempt a comeback. That was 8 years ago.
But also: "young men" is identity politics. Just a different identity than is usually meant.
The "identity politics" stuff is just exhausting. Not to get too political here but I'm only aware of one presidential campaign running a lot of ads in swing states on trans issues and it wasn't the Democrats. Then with all the talk about men and masculinity when I've tried listening to right wing media (even the politicians) and somehow that isn't "identity politics".
Identity politics was originally the idea that people can vote based on measurable core values instead of political party rhetoric. Then Cambridge Analytica was shut down, Mark Zuckerberg got questioned by Congress, and identity politics was replaced by intersectionality and ESG.
>> It's costing us too much and for what? So that Hillary Clinton can become president?
> Why fight over her? She had a go, lost by the rules (even if she got more votes, still lost by the rules), didn't attempt a comeback. That was 8 years ago.
I agree it's odd, but she was part of an important phenomena. IIRC, Kamala Harris was only there because Biden promised to have a black woman VP. And a big part of the case for Hillary Clinton was that "it was time" for a woman president.
And what did that achieve? Two terms of Trump, and the second term shaping up to be a wreaking ball. The Democrats fiddle while Rome burns, stop, yell frightening things about the end of democracy, then go back to fiddling like what they just said wasn't true.
IMHO, it's time for Democrats to stop making excuses and admit defeat. Their ideological priorities plus fearmongering couldn't defeat literally the worst, most obviously incompetent, known value opponent. The Democrats where that bad, and now we're paying the price. They need to go back to the drawing board.
>> This is why it is very important for Democrats to stop throwing young men under the bus and to quit backing identity politics.
> But also: "young men" is identity politics. Just a different identity than is usually meant.
Not necessarily. I think "identity politics" implies a certain kind of favoritism, but that's not what the GP was talking about. He just said "stop throwing young men under the bus," which arguably could mean merely withdrawing the liberal identity-politics favoritism towards girls.
Hillary Clinton is player. She was at the center of Whitewater along with her husband Bill Clinton who was impeached for lying under oath while being questioned about a sex scandal. I agree that Harris is a patsy but a patsy funded by Laurene Powell Jobs who is friends with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
I welcome a qualified female US president as long as she has the public's best interested at heart. At this rate that woman is probably going to be a Republican. And when the current brand of Democrat groans about it that will tell you what their game is all about.
And again "identity politics" originally meant voting based on your core values not political party rhetoric but then Cambridge Analytica got shut down and it became intersectionality.
Hillary Clinton set a negative tone in the Democratic party for decades. Watch a video of British liberal Christopher Hitchens ranting about her and Bill. It all culminated in her pact with the DNC to undermine Bernie Sanders. That's a major part of how we got here.
Young men are the backbone of every economy in the world, that's a real thing and you need them, you also need their tax dollars. Men are most labor and put more into the government then they take back.
> Blaming the party not in power rather than the ones who are and are making these decisions is delusional.
If you're going to throw around words like "delusional," then it's delusional to not understand there's plenty of blame to go around (e.g. blame the Republicans for doing bad things, and blame the Democrats for being so bad that they lost to the Republicans. Insisting one and only one thing can be blamed is a recipe for avoiding responsibility.
Democrats can be blamed for Republicans winning and coming into power. But after that, actions performed by Republicans is the sole responsibility of Republicans. Not Democrats. Here's another example, you can blame a weapons manufacturer for the existence of a gun, but not for how its used. Do you see how this works now?
Agreed. I want to maximize functionality and prosperity. Popular politics is tribalistic nonsense. It leads to fallacious equity and fairness policies "but Billy is braking the law, why can't I? That's not fair."
Republicans are in power because Democrats spent too much time earning points with people that were already going to vote for them. That's why Trump won 7 out of 7 swing states. Democrats could respectfully take their L and learn from their mistakes but instead they want to play the blame game. I mean, we're suppose to be intellectuals, not fanatics. We should act like it.
> Hillary Clinton
Why fight over her? She had a go, lost by the rules (even if she got more votes, still lost by the rules), didn't attempt a comeback. That was 8 years ago.
But also: "young men" is identity politics. Just a different identity than is usually meant.
The "identity politics" stuff is just exhausting. Not to get too political here but I'm only aware of one presidential campaign running a lot of ads in swing states on trans issues and it wasn't the Democrats. Then with all the talk about men and masculinity when I've tried listening to right wing media (even the politicians) and somehow that isn't "identity politics".
Identity politics was originally the idea that people can vote based on measurable core values instead of political party rhetoric. Then Cambridge Analytica was shut down, Mark Zuckerberg got questioned by Congress, and identity politics was replaced by intersectionality and ESG.
We could have had Bernie
I wish we did.
>> It's costing us too much and for what? So that Hillary Clinton can become president?
> Why fight over her? She had a go, lost by the rules (even if she got more votes, still lost by the rules), didn't attempt a comeback. That was 8 years ago.
I agree it's odd, but she was part of an important phenomena. IIRC, Kamala Harris was only there because Biden promised to have a black woman VP. And a big part of the case for Hillary Clinton was that "it was time" for a woman president.
And what did that achieve? Two terms of Trump, and the second term shaping up to be a wreaking ball. The Democrats fiddle while Rome burns, stop, yell frightening things about the end of democracy, then go back to fiddling like what they just said wasn't true.
IMHO, it's time for Democrats to stop making excuses and admit defeat. Their ideological priorities plus fearmongering couldn't defeat literally the worst, most obviously incompetent, known value opponent. The Democrats where that bad, and now we're paying the price. They need to go back to the drawing board.
>> This is why it is very important for Democrats to stop throwing young men under the bus and to quit backing identity politics.
> But also: "young men" is identity politics. Just a different identity than is usually meant.
Not necessarily. I think "identity politics" implies a certain kind of favoritism, but that's not what the GP was talking about. He just said "stop throwing young men under the bus," which arguably could mean merely withdrawing the liberal identity-politics favoritism towards girls.
Hillary Clinton is player. She was at the center of Whitewater along with her husband Bill Clinton who was impeached for lying under oath while being questioned about a sex scandal. I agree that Harris is a patsy but a patsy funded by Laurene Powell Jobs who is friends with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
I welcome a qualified female US president as long as she has the public's best interested at heart. At this rate that woman is probably going to be a Republican. And when the current brand of Democrat groans about it that will tell you what their game is all about.
And again "identity politics" originally meant voting based on your core values not political party rhetoric but then Cambridge Analytica got shut down and it became intersectionality.
4 replies →
Hillary Clinton set a negative tone in the Democratic party for decades. Watch a video of British liberal Christopher Hitchens ranting about her and Bill. It all culminated in her pact with the DNC to undermine Bernie Sanders. That's a major part of how we got here.
Young men are the backbone of every economy in the world, that's a real thing and you need them, you also need their tax dollars. Men are most labor and put more into the government then they take back.
Blaming the party not in power rather than the ones who are and are making these decisions is delusional.
> Blaming the party not in power rather than the ones who are and are making these decisions is delusional.
If you're going to throw around words like "delusional," then it's delusional to not understand there's plenty of blame to go around (e.g. blame the Republicans for doing bad things, and blame the Democrats for being so bad that they lost to the Republicans. Insisting one and only one thing can be blamed is a recipe for avoiding responsibility.
Democrats can be blamed for Republicans winning and coming into power. But after that, actions performed by Republicans is the sole responsibility of Republicans. Not Democrats. Here's another example, you can blame a weapons manufacturer for the existence of a gun, but not for how its used. Do you see how this works now?
1 reply →
Agreed. I want to maximize functionality and prosperity. Popular politics is tribalistic nonsense. It leads to fallacious equity and fairness policies "but Billy is braking the law, why can't I? That's not fair."
Republicans are in power because Democrats spent too much time earning points with people that were already going to vote for them. That's why Trump won 7 out of 7 swing states. Democrats could respectfully take their L and learn from their mistakes but instead they want to play the blame game. I mean, we're suppose to be intellectuals, not fanatics. We should act like it.